Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

RAILWAY CLEARING SYSTEM SUPERANNUATION FUND BILL Lords

Read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

TEES TUNNEL BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

METHODIST CHURCH BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (By Order)

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a second time upon Tuesday next.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

British Institute of Management

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet officials from the British Institute of Management to discuss employment matters.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): I have no such plans, though I am always ready to listen to the views of the British Institute of Management, whether on employment or other matters.

Mr. McCrindle: Does the Secretary of State feel that he has any responsibility for the prosperity of the people represented by the BIM? If so, has he noted that, according to the BIM, the real standards of income of its members fell by 13 per cent. in 1975? In view of that fact, will the right hon. Gentleman press, in Cabinet, for a return of a policy of differentials as soon as possible, otherwise we shall have no managers?

Mr. Booth: I have noticed from the survey conducted by the institute that it considered that the fall in the real standards of some of its members was due to the rate of inflation. Therefore, the institute has a real interest, along with the Government and many other people, in seeing that we overcome inflation. The institute appreciates that in the present situation it is not possible to relieve its members of a substantial part of the sacrifice, which involves many parts of the community in the interests of beating inflation.

Mr. Prior: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British management is showing its pleasure in the Government by getting out of the country as fast as it can, and there is now a very serious drain of management? Is he also aware that we shall never have a successful economy and never again have full employment while management is treated as badly as the Labour Government have treated it? When will the right hon. Gentleman get his colleagues to take action on taxation, differentials, better pay


and a better understanding of British management's position?

Hon. Members: Too long.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the Front Benches and the Back Benches on both sides of the House will realise that the shorter the question the more people can be called.

Mr. Booth: I am conscious that the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends contend that British managers are leaving the country in droves. I have read the report of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth, which examined the latest available figures and reached the conclusion that there was no evidence whatever that British managers were leaving this country any faster now than they have done in the past.

Mr. Madden: Will the Secretary of State note that the directors of the Halifax Building Society have withdrawn a recommendation put to the society's annual meeting on Monday for a payment of £10,000 to be made to a retiring part-time director of the society? Does the Secretary of State accept that golden handshakes, top-hat pensions and insurance policies, preferential mortgage schemes and cheap holidays are all perks enjoyed by many managers, which are widely resented by working people whose incomes are rigidly controlled under the incomes policy?

Mr. Booth: I note what my hon. Friend says, and agree with the spirit of his question. Anything that gives the impression that higher management and directors can make up by other means any loss caused by the incomes policy is bound adversely to affect our chance of operating an equitable incomes policy.

Mr. Bulmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how unemployment can be decreased if major British companies cannot compete with their overseas competitors for the best management available in the market?

Mr. Booth: The evidence is that the best British companies can compete and are competing. With the present low valuation of the pound our opportunities for increasing exports will be shown to be more than a mere potential over the next 12 months.

Training Services Agency

Mr. MacFarquhar: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the operation of the Training Services Agency.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Macfarquhar: Is the Minister aware that some of those responsible for the retraining programme believe that the alarmingly high drop-out rate reported by the Comptroller and Auditor General is in part due to the discouraging discovery that training staff earn less in wages than trainees do in benefits? Will he investigate the wages of training staff?

Mr. Walker: I have seen the reported remarks of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I agree that there are grounds for disquiet, and a number of steps have been taken to reduce the drop-out rates. I shall write to my hon. Friend on the point of the alleged disparity between trainee allowances and staff wages. Trainee allowances amount to £32·42 a week, while the staff salary range for an instructional officer Grade III is £3,137 to £4,237 a year. Therefore, that particular allegation is made on very weak grounds indeed.

Mr. Marten: One of the problems about retraining is that people do not like going away from home for long periods. They would rather wait at home for an upturn in industry to get their original jobs back. Would it not be better if local education authorities, and local business men tried to set up localised retraining schemes wherever possible?

Mr. Walker: A large amount of the TOPS retraining is locally based, in colleges of education. As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, the problem is one of travelling distances. We are seeking to improve training allowances, which should make a contribution towards overcoming this problem.

Mr. Lipton: In deciding where skill-centres should be situated, will the Minister consider establishing one in Brixton, which has the highest unemployment figures in London?

Mr. Walker: I know my hon. Friend's interest in this subject, but there is a Question on this matter later on the Order Paper.

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further contraction he anticipates in the long-term prospects for employment in manufacturing industry.

Mr. Booth: It is the Government's policy to take steps to check and reverse the relative decline in manufacturing employment that has occurred over the past decade. This is a dominant theme in the new industrial strategy and it will continue to be a major consideration in the Government's overall economic strategy.

Mr. Arnold: Does the Secretary of State agree that employment in the manufacturing industry has suffered from a significant and serious decline in recent years? The retrenchment from expansion to a situation that we now have, of very high contraction, is one that undermines our profit margins most seriously and therefore the ability of a whole portion of our economy to compete internationally.

Mr. Booth: There has been a decline in manufacturing employment in recent years, partly due to cyclical factors and increasing capital intensity of some of our manufacturing industry. But our present strategy, based on devoting more investment to manufacturing industry and exporting, should more than offset the factors that have led to the decline over the last few years.

Mr. Noble: Does the Secretary of State agree that while it is important to restructure this industry and redirect investment, these efforts are wasted unless there is an early attempt to control the flow of imports into this country by selective import controls?

Mr. Booth: That is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, but unless some of our major exporting industries can be competitive in international markets they will not be saved by short-term import limitation measures.

Mr. Hayhoe: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is essential for our economic future that we transfer resources

in this country from wealth consumption to wealth creation? Under the present Administration, is not the trend of moving in the opposite direction contributing to our economic ills?

Mr. Booth: I see no evidence that this is the case in current Government plans. Part of the difficulty in the debate taking place on public expenditure priorities arises from the determination that more money should be put into the manufacturing sector.

Pay Scales (Increments)

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether, in the current discussions on the new pay policy to be pursued after 1st August the Government are proposing that increments be excluded from the limits in the next phase in the same way as they have been this year.

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to freeze incremental pay scales during the next phase of pay policy.

Mr. Harold Walker: Under the TUC proposals for the period from 1st August the overall pay figure would in general be applied in the same way as in the current policy, which requires an offset to be made where allowable incremental payments involve a net cost.

Mr. MacGregor: Is it not grossly unfair that many people on incremental scales have been able for two years running to get more than the £6-a-week limit and the 4½ per cent. limit? This mainly applies to the public sector and is greatly resented by those in the private sector who are not on incremental scales, including those on merit award schemes, which are similar to increments but which are not exempted. In the interests of a fair policy, would it not be better to exclude increments altogether?

Mr. Walker: The Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted on 5th May that there was a problem with incremental payments, and pointed out that in successive Government's incomes policies so far, one of the main problems had been the need to tackle and make allowances for incremental payments. The policy does not discriminate in favour of Government employees. By no means all


of them receive such incremental payments.

Mr. Rooker: Incremental payment schemes have been used in this country in order to pay considerably less than the rate for the job. This is particularly so in the case where the Post Office have a scale stretching over 14 years. This is a heaven-sent opportunity, with the Government-imposed pay policy to do something about the situation. It is particularly unfair where people earning over £10,000 a year are able to get increments of £5 plus the £6 a week, as opposed to other people, at the top of their incremental scales, who earn only £40 a week and cannot get further increments.

Mr. Walker: The Government do face difficulties dealing with incremental payments. It would be advisable for the House to wait for the detailed statement that the Chancellor has promised.

Construction Industry

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment in the construction industry; and what proposals be has for reducing it over the next few months.

Mr. Loyden: asked the Secretary of State for Employment, what action he is taking to reduce unemployment in the building and construction industries.

Mr. Booth: At 8th April 1976, 213,480 people who last worked in the construction industry were registered as unemployed in Great Britain.
The measures taken to relieve unemployment, which were announced in February 1976 and September 1975, included the provision of over £80 million to help provide employment where it was most needed in the construction industry. The priority given to house building by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and the measures taken to encourage industrial investment have also benefited the industry.

Mr. Latham: Is it not certain that these deplorable figures will get worse, since the latest industry survey shows a further sharp decline in new orders since January?

Mr. Booth: We are not certain as yet what the movement of these figures will be, but we are certainly taking steps that we would not take unless we believed that the intolerable level would continue for some time.

Mr. Loyden: Is the Secretary of State aware that on Merseyside more than 13,000 construction workers are unemployed at the moment? This represents 50 per cent. of the total unemployed construction workers in the North West. At the same time 16,500 people are on housing waiting lists in Liverpool, awaiting accommodation. The steps that have been taken so far are inadequate to deal with this problem. I urge the Secretary of State to discuss with his right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and Industry the need for urgent action on this matter at this time.

Mr. Booth: I certainly appreciate that this is a very special problem on Merseyside. I do have regular discussions with my colleagues in the Department of the Environment and I give the undertaking that my hon. Friend seeks. If the solution that he suggests is one that can be achieved only in terms of considerable increases in public expenditure in that field, we have to realise that we are talking about a choice of priorities.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will the Secretary of State particularly address himself to the problem of craftsmen workers in stone and wood and ensure that these crafts are kept alive?

Mr. Booth: This is one of the serious problems created by construction industry unemployment. It is a question not merely of maintaining the crafts, but of ensuring that training takes place. That is why we have introduced special training measures through the MSC and TSA to ensure that there will be no shortage when the upturn comes.

Mr. Watkinson: I accept the figures that my right hon. Friend has given about housing, but does he accept that there has been a fall off in public sector demand in the construction industry? Will he stress the importance of introducing some form of counter-cyclical construction programme so that we do not have to go through this same story yet again in the next business cycle?

Mr. Booth: There is certainly a cyclical aspect to high unemployment in the industry. This is one of the areas in which we are considering the most effective counter-cyclical measures that can be developed. But what we can do at present is limited by public expenditure considerations, and we should be looking very much to the future in determining how we can introduce a wider range of counter-cyclical measures to deal with future unemployment.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the Secretary of State accept that if these appalling figures are not reduced by June it will be too late to do anything about them in 1976? If he cannot find a solution in the relationship between unemployment in the industry and the serious shortfall in housing programme he should confess to his failure now.

Mr. Booth: Some of the measures announced by the Chancellor were in anticipation of a worsening problem that would develop, but the choice between the amount that is devoted to building and the amount that is devoted to easing the social cost of unemployment is a question of priorities. That does not mean that we shall not reconsider this matter in the light of what we accept to be very high unemployment in the building industry.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my right hon. Friend not accept that it is totally irrational for there to be so many unemployed construction workers on Merseyside when there is also a great need for many construction projects such as housing, a new hospital in Skelmersdale and the replacement of many of the Victorian schools in my constituency? Would it not be sensible to reorganise resources to achieve these social objectives now and to reduce unemployment?

Mr. Booth: I will accept my hon. Friend's proposition if he will accept from me that it is irrational to have over 1 million people unemployed when we need to reorganise wealth to solve a number of social and economic problems. It is within that context that I see a longer-term solution, which does not deal separately with the building industry but builds up this country's potential to create wealth.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Does the Secretary of State agree that the public sector cannot resolve this matter, since public funds are not available to it? Does he accept that the private sector can? What encouragement and incentive will he provide the private sector to reduce unemployment? The funds are available in the building societies, and the demand for owner-occupation exists. What steps does he intend to take?

Mr. Booth: I do not accept the implication of the question. The public sector has made a considerable contribution to easing unemployment. The private sector should be making as big a contribution.

School Leavers

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many school-leavers are at present unemployed in the Chester area.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): As at 8th April the last count there were 63 school leavers unemployed in the Chester area.

Mr. Morrison: That is 63 too many. Does the Minister agree that many school leavers get their first jobs in small businesses, but that this incompetent Socialist Government are forcing small businesses to close down or to cut their work forces? Hence, it is not surprising that 63 school leavers are without a job in Chester.

Mr. Golding: The situation in Chester is far from satisfactory, but I do not accept the hon. Member's explanation. In Chester the TSA has provided two training courses for retailing and one for office procedures, and these provide 48 places for young people. More than 130 applications for the recruitment subsidy scheme for school leavers have been approved in Chester, along with two job creation schemes.

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people, having attained the age of 16 years and having left school prior to the end of the academic year, are currently drawing unemployment benefit.

Mr. Harold Walker: I regret that this information is not available. However, it would be exceptional for any such


school leavers to qualify for unemployment benefit in the limited time up to the end of the academic year.

Mr. Hunt: I accept that in this regard the numbers may be very small, but will the Minister, in conjunction with the Department of Health and Social Security, examine the closely-related problems of those who leave school and, instead of taking up work, claim supplementary rather than unemployment benefit? Is he aware that in some areas young people are claiming this benefit and no questions are being asked about their efforts to find work? Does this not represent a serious abuse of the social security system?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman fairly recognises that supplementary benefit and its administration are matters for the Department of Health and Social Security. Quite honestly, I am sceptical about the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, but none the less I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Greville Janner: Bearing in mind the large number of young people who are or will be drawing unemployment benefit, would it not be much better to allow people to retire at 60, so that those who are older can be on pensions and those who are younger can be at work?

Mr. Walker: I know the interest that my hon. and learned Friend has sustained in this question, and he will recognise that, again, this is a matter for the Department of Health and Social Security and not for me.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister of State aware that at the end of June many thousands of young people will be leaving school in Scotland? Will he take this opportunity to tell them of the prospects they will have of obtaining a job?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman and the House should recognise that the problem of unemployment among young people is common to all the EEC countries. I hope that he will recognise that the Government have introduced a number of contingency measures to try to help find employment for these young people.

Mr. Corbett: Bearing in mind that about 500,000 school-leavers will be look-

ing for jobs later this summer, will my hon. Friend consider making a special approach to the CBI, asking it to encourage its individual members to see what they can do to help with the creation of new jobs through the Job Creation Programme, by lending staff, making materials available, or making money available?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his very constructive and helpful suggestion. I hope that private industry—there have been some helpful responses so far—will show greater interest in and provide greater support for the Job Creation Programme in the way suggested.

Mr. Lawson: Does the Minister agree that the purpose of unemployment benefit is not to provide students with an additional vacation grant? What steps does he or his Department propose to take to reduce the eligibility of students for unemployment benefit during the vacations?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman will understand that this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I assure him that this problem is under active consideration at the present time and will be the subject of a statement in due course.

Deptford (Skillcentre)

Mr. Cartwright: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he now expects construction work to start on the new skillcentre at Deptford.

Mr. Golding: The Manpower Services Commission informs me that there have been difficulties in obtaining planning permission, and this is still awaited.
Following receipt of the planning clearance, it will take about a year for detailed plans of the building to be made, contracts placed and preparations made for a start on construction work.

Mr. Cartwright: Is my hon. Friend aware that this centre was first promised to South-East London almost eight years ago, in the wake of the AEI closure? In view of the delays caused by the apparently endless wrangles over planning, what interim arrangements are there for training in the Woolwich area and when does my hon. Friend hope that they will come into operation?

Mr. Golding: The delay is much regretted. The TSA has decided as an interim measure to bring forward plans for a skillcentre annexe, which was originally to have followed completion of the Deptford skillcentre. The TSA hopes to provide an appreciable number of skillcentre jobs as early as possible in 1977 in South-East London.

Mr. Lipton: Is my hon. Friend aware that he will have no difficulty about planning or anything else if he wants to establish a skillcentre in Brixton, where unemployment is higher than anywhere else in London? Is he aware that the Lambeth Borough Council and everybody else want it established in Brixton?

Mr. Golding: I am sure that the TSA will bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.

Clacton-on-Sea

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how the rate of over 11 per cent. unemployment in Clacton-on-Sea compares with other seaside towns in England and Wales.

Mr. Golding: At April 1976, 15 employment areas with coastlines had rates above that in Clacton-on-Sea, two had the same rate, others had lower rates.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Minister aware that a great number of the people concerned are late in their working lives and have been unemployed for some time? Would it not be better and cheaper to allow them to retire early? What study has been made of that?

Mr. Golding: It is true that one third of those unemployed are aged between 60 and 65. The hon. Member's suggestion, however, raises wide implications for employment policy which go beyond this particular Question.

Mr. Costain: The obvious answer in these coastal towns is to encourage tourism. Why cannot the Minister arrange for special priority to be given to tourist areas, so that people will spend their holidays in this country and provide work for these unemployed?

Mr. Golding: One of the problems of Clacton is that the seasonal unemployment there is very much higher than in some other resort towns, and it would

be worth examining why that situation exists.

Training

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will direct Government training centres to give priority to the retraining of unemployed persons, especially in areas of high unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Harold Walker: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that about two-thirds of applicants for TOPS courses are unemployed. Of the balance, a number are likely to be in relatively insecure employment, while the few who leave secure employment to be trained do of course create employment opportunities for others. I doubt whether there is a sufficient case at present for altering these arrangements, but they are kept under continual review.

Mr. Dempsey: Will my hon. Friend say why persons who are employed in skills that are not disappearing should get preference over large numbers of unemployed persons who have lost their skills because of the changing techniques in production and distribution? Is that policy not completely contrary to the spirit of the retraining Act?

Mr. Walker: In times of high unemployment it is not easy to draw a distinction between the applicant who is unemployed and the person who applies for training because his future is insecure. I think that the best solution is to increase overall the number of training places, and this is being done.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the great need for a Government training centre in the Caernarvon and Bangor area, where there is unemployment ranging between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent.? Is he further aware that persistent efforts have been made to press on his Department the need to establish such a centre? Will he now give some indication of progress in that direction?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman must realise that these are matters primarily for the Manpower Services Commission and the Training Services Agency, and that it is for the commission to determine its priority programme


for the future building of skillcentres. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the Chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, but the future programme has been drawn up on the basis of a very careful assessment of the needs of different areas.

Temporary Employment Subsidy (Northern Region)

Mr. Radice: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to improve the take-up of the temporary employment subsidy in the Northern Region.

Mr. Booth: My officials take every opportunity of informing employers about the temporary employment subsidy, which, of course, is a voluntary scheme. In Northern Region all employers have been suitably advised whenever the threat of redundancies has come to notice, and since 8th March 1976 a letter about the scheme and an explanatory leaflet have been sent to every employer notifying an impending redundancy under the Employment Protection Act 1975.

Mr. Radice: Will my right hon. Friend explain why it is that, despite the very high level of unemployment in the Northern Region and disturbing signs of further weakness, the take-up of the temporary employment subsidy in that region is lower than in any other region? Is my right hon. Friend certain that his Department is doing all it can to make firms aware of the benefits of the subsidy?

Mr. Booth: As at Friday 7th May, applications covering 3,293 workers have been received in the Northern Region, and 21 applications, covering 2,240 workers, have been approved.
It is the case that the flow of applications in the Northern Region appears again to have fallen behind that of other comparable regions, but I find it very difficult to believe that the reason for this is an unawareness of the scheme. I am hopeful that with the increase in temporary employment subsidy to £20 a week and the reduction in the numbers of the qualifying redundancies to 10 or more, coupled with the requirement to notify my Department of these redundancies under the Employment Protection Act and to notify trade unions, the trade unions

and employers will be considering together the use of this improved temporary employment subsidy scheme as a means of preventing further redundancies in the Northern Region.

School Leavers (Pay Parity)

Mr. Steen: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now introduce pay parity for work carried out by school leavers under the Job Creation Programme and the Community Industry Scheme.

Mr. Harold Walker: The schemes have different objectives and are designed for different groups of people, and I have no plans to introduce pay parity.

Mr. Steen: Is the Minister aware that school leavers with the Job Creation Programme despise the Government for paying them double the amount that they were earning previously when working with other employers, and one-third more than their friends working with the Community Industry Scheme? Does the Minister now think that the Government need to have their heads examined for paying unnecessarily inflated wages?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman has from time to time made the suggestion that those who are working under the Job Creation Programme should receive less than the appropriate rate for the job. I can only say that we disagree and think it quite right that the rate for the job should be a proper one.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does my hon. Friend agree that many kinds of useful work have been done by youths working in the Community Industry Scheme? Has there been a shortage of jobs at any time that can be provided by local authorities? If that is not so, can we not increase further the amount of money allocated to the Community Industry Scheme to ensure that more jobs are provided for our young people?

Mr. Walker: The Government have recently made a significant extra amount available. I am not quite sure whether the number of projects is matching up to the needs of the scheme. I hope that local authorities will continue to seek to provide appropriate projects to enable the full take-up of the amount of money in the places available.

Mr. Brittan: Does the Minister not agree that many of those participating in the Job Creation Programme at the moment would be prepared to take the jobs concerned at a lower rate, and that if this were done it would be possible to make the benefit of the scheme available to many more people than are having it at the moment?

Mr. Walker: I have no evidence of what the hon. Gentleman suggests—that people in the Job Creation Programme would be prepared to work for less. If the hon. Gentleman assures me that this is so, I will take his word for it, but he must also have regard to the industrial relations difficulties that might arise as between those who are permanently and regularly employed in the occupations that the Job Creation Programme might cover.

Scotland

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Employment by what percentage unemployment in Scotland has increased or decreased since October 1974.

Mr. Booth: Between October 1974 and April 1976, the numbers unemployed in Scotland, seasonally adjusted and excluding school-leavers, increased by 64·6 per cent.

Mr. Taylor: Is not the Secretary of State ashamed of the situation, in which, in Scotland today, the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment is rising at the rate of 100 every working day? In view of this situation, will he speak to his Cabinet colleagues with a view to making progress on the transfer of the 7,000 Civil Service jobs to Glasgow, the progress of which has been much delayed, I understand, because of fears that the Government's ludicrous devolution plans may lead to the breakup of Great Britain.

Mr. Booth: The unemployment situation in Scotland, relative to that of the United Kingdom as a whole, has shown a slight deterioration recently from a ratio of 117 per cent. of the United Kingdom figure to 119 per cent. of the United Kingdom figure. This compares with a ratio as high as 170 per cent. in 1973. Therefore, I think that the deterioration needs to be kept in proportion.
I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of Government

plans to place civil servants in all the regions that are suffering from unemployment. This matter is under consideration between myself and my colleagues.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend consider specially the Cowdenbeath-Lochgelly area where the percentage unemployment figure is far higher than for the rest of Scotland? Will he undertake to examine the proposals of the Scottish National Party to run down North Sea oil development, which would have the result of still further increasing the serious unemployment problem in Scotland?

Mr. Booth: I realise that the overall figure that I gave hides the fact that in certain areas of Scotland there is very serious unemployment.
As for the SNP's proposal on oil development, there is bound to be a reduction in the amount of work that the development of North Sea oil provides as there is a turnover from exploration to production. Any proposals to slow down the rate of development of North Sea oil will cause grave alarm to my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, because we are concerned to ensure maximum employment for people in Scotland.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we in Scotland are anxious for permanent, not temporary jobs, which is what the rapid grab for oil will lead to? As the Labour Party manifesto asked us to vote Labour to safeguard employment, do the broken promises that are strewn around mean that the Labour Party conference will be the shambles that the Scottish Tory Party conference was the other day?

Mr. Booth: I find it hard to reconcile concern about levels of unemployment in Scotland with disparaging remarks about the temporary nature of North Sea oil jobs. I should have thought that many of those jobs were most welcome and that any plans to limit them in the near future would be resisted by those who are primarily concerned about levels of unemployment.

Unemployed Persons

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how current unemployment levels compared with 1973.

Mr. Booth: The numbers unemployed in Great Britain at April 1973 and April 1976 were 647,770 and 1,231,218 respectively.

Mr. Sillars: Do not those figures and the reply to the previous Question illustrate the simple truth that centralised regional policies do not work and can best be described as failures? Does the Secretary of State agree that the best and most effective regional policy for Scotland, Wales, and the other regions of England would be economic self-management? Will he, the Prime Minister, and the rest of the Cabinet, bear that in mind when they reconsider the Government's devolution policy in terms of the powers to go to a Scottish Assembly?

Mr. Booth: I believe that the figures that I quoted in answer to the previous Question, which showed that unemployment in Scotland had risen less in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom than in previous slumps, indicate that the regional policies determined by this House have had a favourable effect in Scotland, as in a number of other development areas.

Mr. Evelyn King: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in seaside resorts —I have Weymouth particularly in mind —for many years unemployment has been excessively high, wages have been excessively low, and no Labour Government have taken the slightest interest? Will he, for his own sake, try to reverse that policy and do something for us?

Mr. Booth: I certainly accept that in many seaside resorts unemployment has been high, particularly in winter, and wages have been low. However, I do not accept that the Government are not concerned about that matter. We have been concerned about it in the siting of jobs and in determining the relationship between support for tourism and support for industry, particularly in development areas.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this should be a matter not only of concern but of general economic strategy? Does he agree that about this time last year the strategy was to cut back the consumer's purchasing power by developing the £6 pay limit in line with the union leadership, which resulted in unemployment becoming

almost double what it was? What chance is there of a change in this strategy, as a result of the further reduction in the purchasing power of ordinary working people arising from the 4½ per cent. policy?

Mr. Booth: The concern and the strategy go hand in hand. In so far as employment has been dependent upon the purchasing power of the British people, the rate of inflation has cut back on that purchasing power. If our present overall strategy reduces the rate of inflation by another half in the coming year, ilt will increase the purchacing power of the British people and provide a basis on which to found firmer pay claims in future.

Mr. Prior: Is it not clear from every answer that we have had from the Secretary of State this afternoon that his Department and the Government have no answer to the unemployment problem? Is this not a positive indication of the dismal failure of Socialism and of Socialist policies in Britain?

Mr. Booth: The Government have not only introduced a wide range of measures to deal with the cyclical effects of unemployment; they are pursuing a strategy that holds better prospects for employment in future than was ever the case with the previous Government.

AUSTRALIA

Mr. Ridley: asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit Australia.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I have at present no plans to visit Australia.

Mr. Ridley: That is a pity. Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be a shame not to have the chance to talk to Sir John Kerr and learn about the great efficacy and democratic use of the exercise of the Royal Prerogative to dismiss a discredited Government? Will he give an undertaking that the report of the Labour Party home policy committee, which suggests abolishing the Royal Prerogative in this country—taking the Queen out of politics—will be quashed and not allowed to become law by this Government?

The Prime Minister: The Crown normally remains outside the realm of party politics, although I understand that royalties are sometimes associated with other publications. In the course of Her Majesty's reign I have seen Dissolution on seven occasions. I thought that they were all eminently satisfactory, and on four occasions at least they were positively right.

Mr. Grimond: Without necessarily tearing himself away to go to Australia, will the Prime Minister consider instituting a further examination of federal systems, such as the Australian system, with a view to any possible lessons they might have to teach us about devolution in this country?

The Prime Minister: I should be ready to look at the lessons from other countries, but the stormy relationships between the State Governments in Australia and the Central Government there are hardly encouraging for us to draw any lessons from.

Mr. Hooley: If my right hon. Friend has occasion to go to Australia, will he discuss with the Australian Government the question of demand and supply for world commodities, especially metals, with a view to arriving at a more helpful and constructive attitude towards UNCTAD by the British Government than has so far been shown?

The Prime Minister: I think that Australia illustrates the difficulty of this problem. In no circumstances can Australia be described as a poverty-stricken country, but clearly it is the country that would benefit most from some of the proposals put forward at UNCTAD, precisely because it has control of many metals and commodities. For that reason, the British Government have not gone overboard for a common fund, but have preferred to deal with the matter commodity by commodity. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for illustrating this matter so well.

CIVIL SERVICE COLLEGE, EDINBURGH

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Civil Service College in Edinburgh.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the enforced closure of the Civil Service College in Edinburgh, which is very highly regarded throughout Great Britain, would cause great resentment in Scotland and would be completely inconsistent with the Government's devolution proposals?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the work done by this college in Edinburgh. The proposals are part of a study being made by the Government with a view to saving a great deal of money—£140 million—on Civil Service manpower and expenditure. Every cut that we make will be painful, and each will have supporters. I want to end the uncertainty of the staff, but I cannot do so yet because this is one of a number of propositions under examination. I fully realise the value of this college, but if we are to save this money a number of valuable elements will have to go. It is something I regret, but it will be necessary.

Mr. Sillars: If the Prime Minister cannot pay a visit to the Civil Service College, will he go to Moray House and other teacher training colleges in Scotland, where students are beginning to sit in against the cuts in education expenditure and the loss of job opportunities? Will he also explain to those students and the Scottish public how it is that after the autumn we shall reach the absurd position in which inadequately-educated schoolchildren are standing in the same dole queues as trained but unemployed teachers?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman wants a detailed answer to that question, he should put it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will give him such a reply. I am replying to a Question on the Civil Service College. In regard to educational expenditure in Scotland, have been looking at this matter and at the possible cuts that might be made. The statistics being bandied about do not bear the weight being placed on them by some hon. Members.

Mr. Donald Stewart: As this Government. like their Conservative predecessors, are committed to the transfer


of thousands of Civil Service jobs from London to Scotland, will the Prime Minister tell us why there should be any doubt about this college, which employs 130 people?

The Prime Minister: The proposals to transfer large numbers of civil servants from the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Overseas Development go on. There is no interference with them. They will take place. But I say to the hon. Gentleman—many a mickle makes a muckle. It is by adding up all these 130s that one arrives at a vast total. In order that there is no misunderstanding, I should explain that this is one of many proposals on which no decision has yet been taken. All the considerations being advanced by hon. Members will be taken into account.

Mr. William Hamilton: Has my right hon. Friend any evidence that there is an increasing reluctance of civil servants, faced with the possibility of devolution legislation, to move north of the border?

The Prime Minister: I have not yet found any such reluctance. Many of the students at the Civil Service College come from south of the border and are not Scottish.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the Prime Minister realise that if the Government's proposals for devolution are implemented in their present form, there will be at least 1,000 extra civil servants to service the Assembly? Can the Prime Minister explain how this will be feasible if the college closes?

The Prime Minister: The two things do not necessarily go together. I recognise that devolution of real powers to Scotland will mean an increase in the number of civil servants. This is one of the issues that the House must face. I understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulties. I read his letter in The Times today. He is trying to paper over the cracks in the Opposition. I suggest that he goes on trying, but I do not think that he will have much success.

COVENTRY

Mr. Cryer: asked the Prime Minister if he will visit Coventry.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if he does visit Coventry he should congratulate the workers of British Leyland on turning a loss last year into a half-yearly profit? Does he agree that the Opposition feel considerable chagrin over this fact, because they would have let this important export-winning firm go to the wall? Will my right hon. Friend also convey to the workers of British Leyland the fact that the board should not agree to appointments such as that of the chairman, Sir Richard Dobson, who, as he earns £22,500 a year for a part-time job, is hardly likely to inspire them—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough for the Prime Minister to be getting on with.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that British Leyland's modest profit over the half year is encouraging, especially when it is contrasted with last year's results, even though there were some adventitious factors contributing to it. It is also encouraging that the number of days lost in industrial disputes has fallen, and will, I hope, continue to fall substantially. It is in the national interest that this venture should succeed, whatever prejudices hon. Members may have held before it began. I understand the other part of my hon. Friend's question. I have read it in different guises on at least three occasions. I suggest that he should now give over and encourage the chairman, whom I have not had the pleasure of meeting, to do even better in the next half year than in the last.

Mr. Lane: Is the Prime Minister aware that in places like Coventry there is bound to be anxiety about the threat to United Kingdom passport holders in Africa? Some of us who had to visit such places on the last occasion that we had an influx of Asians are only too well aware of this fact. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government will take all possible political, diplomatic and economic action to dissuade the Malawian Government from upsetting the orderly phased movement—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting back to the old dispute about whether


hon. Members need to put Questions on the Order Paper at all, or whether they should throw questions out of the blue to the Prime Minister. The hon. Member is stretching things in trying to link Malawi with Coventry.

Mr. Faulds: If and when the Prime Minister visits the West Midlands, will he take the opportunity to make a major utterance on the acceptance of a multiracial society in Britain, both to comfort the new Britons of our immigrant communities and to offset the damaging activities of a small number of local politicians who wish to stir up racialist antipathies in Britain's present economic climate?

The Prime Minister: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I came to the conclusion some time ago that Questions to the Prime Minister were a guessing game. I guessed the question of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), but I thought it would arise on the question of a visit to Australia rather than on a visit to Coventry.
I shall certainly take every opportunity to state that what is necessary in this country is a multi-racial society, fully developed and fully integrated. In relation to the entry of United Kingdom passport holders from the Commonwealth or other countries, I made my contribution in 1968. I was heavily attacked, but I believe my action has regulated the flow.
I spoke to Dr. Banda about this subject when I was there a year ago and I am satisfied from what he said then that there will be no great exodus from Malawi, though he intends to go ahead with the Africanisation of the country. If he keeps to the undertaking that he gave me, I do not think we need fear a large exodus.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Lawrence: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 18th May.

The Prime Minister: There was a meeting of the Cabinet this morning and I shall be holding further meetings with my ministerial colleagues and others during the course of the day, including

a meeting with Mr. Joshua Nkomo. This evening I shall be speaking at the annual dinner of the CBI.

Mr. Lawrence: When the Prime Minister can find a moment between his arduous list of activities, will he telephone Dr. Hastings Banda and remind him of the hospitality that he enjoyed in Britain at a time when we were better able to offer it? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask Dr. Banda to reconsider the position of the Asians in Malawi and allow them to continue to enjoy the same facilities and to offer the same valuable services to his community as Dr. Banda was able to enjoy when he was in this country?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate that the Prime Minister's other important engagements may prevent his attendance in the Chamber during the debate this afternoon, but will he clarify his own attitude about the sale of council houses? Is it true that he intends to change the Government's policy and bring it into line with what we believe on the Opposition side of the House?

The Prime Minister: If the acting Leader of the Opposition will look at the Order Paper he will find in it an interesting amendment in my name. When he has heard the debate this afternoon I hope that he will join me in the Lobby at 7 o'clock, so that we can both vote on the same side.

Mr. Mike Thomas: In the course of his current official engagement of answering Questions in the House, will my right hon. Friend say what the issues were regarding the price of fuel, especially electricity and gas, that were raised with him and his colleagues by the trade union movement in the course of the latest negotiations about pay policy?

The Prime Minister: That does not arise out of my engagements for today. We had, of course, a very important series of discussions with the TUC, which involved the question of prices. The future level of prices will be discussed with the CBI and the Retail Price Consortium during the next few days. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection intends to do that. It is our view that


these commodities should, as far as possible, be priced at a proper level that will give an adequate return, especially in the case of the nationalised industries, although there is still some room for subsidies in particular cases.

BUSINESS OF THE DAY (MR. SPEAKER'S STATEMENT)

Mr. Speaker: The House will know that the debate on council housing and new towns is due to finish at 7 o'clock. I should tell the House that there are two statements to be made, a Standing Order No. 9 application and a Ten-Minute Bill, the latter to be opposed. It is quite clear that unless self-discipline is exercised it will be difficult for me to get more than two or three Members into the debate this afternoon, bearing in mind that there will be four Front Bench speakers.

BRITISH OIL COMPANIES (PAYMENTS IN ITALY)

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joel Barnett): A number of my hon. Friends have made clear their concern about the reports in the Press and on television concerning certain payments made by oil companies in Italy. I understand their concern. Both the companies concerned, Shell and BP, have issued statements to the Press explaining the circumstances surrounding the payments, and the Chairman of BP referred to the matter again in his statement to the Company's Annual General Meeting on 29th April. He said that he would be issuing written guidelines restating in formal terms the company's position on political payments, namely that none is to be made, directly or indirectly, unless the making of such payments is lawful in the country concerned and in accordance with a policy approved by the board of the particular subsidiary company.
The Government would be most concerned if any company, British or foreign, were found to have made payments of this kind in the United Kingdom. Under our companies legislation, of course, political payments would have to be recorded in the company's annual report, and secret payments of that kind would therefore be illegal. But in the case of BP,

the chairman has made it clear that his company does not and never has made political contributions in the United Kingdom.
I am sure the House will welcome the chairman's statement. I need hardly emphasise the Government's anxiety that all British companies should conduct their overseas business within the laws of their host countries and our readiness to root out bribery and corruption. Nevertheless, the high standards of business practice that we expect from British companies do not apply everywhere, and the main responsibility for deciding what is unacceptable, and for dealing with it, must rest with the host countries themselves.
The House will appreciate that it is not within Her Majesty's Government's power unilaterally to prevent corruption in other countries. What is needed is effective international action, and it is by our efforts to promote concerted action that we can best satisfy the wish of my hon. Friends—a wish which, as I have said, the Government fully share—to act against bribery and corruption wherever it is found. The Government will accordingly be pressing in appropriate international organisations for measures to be taken wherever possible to deal with this evil.

Mr. Nott: It is a little unclear why the Government felt it necessary to make such a statement. The Chief Secretary has not told us anything new. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are naturally happy to have confirmation that the chairmen of our major companies will not condone corruption of any kind? However, we knew that already. Is he aware that we are happy to know that ultimately the resolution of these problems must lie in the host countries themselves? Is he further aware that our major companies are operating in the real world and that we would deplore any humbug in the British Press, or from Labour Members, that damage their interests?

Mr. Barnett: We have no wish to damage anybody's interests in this country. I am surprised that the Opposition did not at least see fit to support the international action that we are proposing to take, because that is the only way one can outlaw this kind of corruption and abuse.

Mr. Pardoe: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the moral to be drawn from this matter is that in this country at least we should not countenance the corrupt bribery of political parties? Will the right hon. Gentleman state what the Government's policy is towards the continuance of financial support by the trade unions, on the one side, and big business on the other, of the two major bastions of the two-party system?

Mr. Barnett: I had a feeling that there was a touch of envy, perhaps, in the hon. Gentleman's statement. I have nothing to add as regards policy in that respect.

Mr. Sedgemore: I accept the Chief Secretary's thesis that bribery and corruption are to be regarded as normal commercial practices the world over, but does he not agree that in the case of publicly-owned companies the British public should be told what is going on so that they can decide which forms of bribery and corruption are acceptable and which are not? In the case of BP, does he agree that the right answer is to scrap the doctrine in the Bradbury and Bridges letters and to make the company accountable to the public and Parliament?

Mr. Barnett: I am glad to know that my hon. Friend understands that it is not for him or me to decide what sort of practices should be adopted in various countries around the world. I must tell him that the Bradbury letter is not the relevant issue. It was not a matter of who controlled BP as regards this issue. The only way to stamp out this sort of practice is by concerted international action, and that is what we shall be pressing for.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that statements made by Labour Members have brought more discredit on British industry than Press reports of alleged bribery and corruption? Does he realise that the multinational companies would welcome some sort of international agency to which they could appeal when overseas Governments put undue pressure on them? They would not in the least mind a stiff code of regulations.

Mr. Barnett: Surely British industry would have welcomed some support from

the Opposition for the Government's counter-inflation policy, which is the best help it can get and the best way in which British industry will be helped—namely, by bringing down the rate of inflation.
As regards international agencies, as I have indicated, it is our policy to press for action for precisely that sort of agency.

Mr. Prescott: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that I consider his statement to be rather shameful and in line with the cover-up that tends to be going on in Europe about the activities of multinationals? It is not doubted that the payments were made. That is clear. Apparently what is doubted is whether this is legal corruption. The very people who decide what is legal and what is illegal are those who are receiving the money. As the Government have made clear their opinions about South African wages and Ceylon tea plantations, for example, should we not take a certain posture in these matters and recommend that companies adopt it? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should not separate ourselves, as we have done in this statement?

Mr. Barnett: I am surprised by my hon. Friend, but I sympathise with his concern about this matter and, indeed, agree with him when he talks about people receiving money. The people who are receiving the money are in other countries. The way to deal with that is the way that I have outlined in my statement.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: As an independent Scotland would follow realistic policies, and as those policies would undoubtedly upset the large international oil companies, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that contributions to Unionist front organisations such as "Keep Britain United", and others of that sort, will be prohibited in terms of the statement that he has made?

Mr. Barnett: I have little doubt that if the policies of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were followed, we should get very little in the way of investment in Britain. As far as I am concerned, what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are doing is causing the maximum possible harm to both Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole.

Dr. Phipps: I welcome the Chief Secretary's commitment to international


agencies. However, which agencies does he have in mind? If these are internal matters of the countries concerned, what sanctions might the agencies be able to apply?

Mr. Barnett: The agencies I would think most valuable are the widest possible agencies, such as the OECD and the United Nations. It is in those organisations that I should have thought that we would be able to get the appropriate action.

Mr. John H. Osborn: This subject was debated in the European Parliament a week ago today. Most politicians and most people in business condemn corruption of this type. The trouble is that corruption is illegal in many countries but the common practice. Does the Minister see this initiative making it any easier for our exporters who are exporting against competitors who have no dislikes such as we have in Britain? Will he genuinely get a response from the United Nations and the OECD?

Mr. Barnett: I have read the debates of the European Parliament. There is nothing that I or the Government wish to do to discriminate against our exporters in foreign markets.

Mrs. Wise: Will my right hon. Friend be surprised to learn that many of us on the Government side of the House regard his statement as feeble, inadequate and unacceptable? Is he aware that we believe that the yardstick he should use is not whether the matter of corruption is lawful or acceptable in Italy but whether it is acceptable here? Further, will he accept that his statement that it would not matter who controlled BP is confirmation to us that the form of public ownership here and in other instances is inadequate and needs to be made democratic and accountable?

Mr. Barnett: No, I am not too surprised by my hon. Friend's statement at all. I can perfectly well understand it. However, when she mentions the point I made about it not mattering who controlled BP, she fails to take account of the fact that it is where BP trades that matters. If BP trades in some 70 countries, it will not be possible for whoever controls BP to control the practices in those 70 countries.

EMPLOYMENT (HEALTH RISKS FROM ASBESTOS)

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): In my predecessor's statement to the House on 30th March, he said that the Health and Safety Commission had decided, in consultation with Ministers, to set up a committee to review the health risks from asbestos and that the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, Mr. Simpson, would himself act as chairman of this committee. The committee's report will be for the consideration of the commission and of Ministers concerned.
I am now able to announce the membership of the committee. This will consist of three members nominated by the TUC; three members nominated by the CBI; four members of the medical profession who specialise in epidemiology, lung diseases, and occupational medicine; two occupational hygienists; a consultant chemical engineer and physicist; an environmental health officer; and a representative of the National Consumer Council. A full list of members will be circulated in the Official Report.
The membership of the committee has been very carefully considered, and not only reflects the constitution of the Commission by including representatives of both sides of industry, but also includes independent members with the best medical, scientific and environmental expertise available in this country. In view of the wide-ranging terms of reference, consumer interest has also been taken into account.
I trust that hon. Members will agree that we are very fortunate in obtaining the services of these people, who represent such a wide range of knowledge and expertise, and I am grateful to them for undertaking to give their time and effort to the important task which lies before them.
In order to deal with the task of the committee expeditiously, it is proposed to set up working groups to deal with groups of subjects and on to which individuals may be co-opted in order to take advantage of their special skills and experience.
In his earlier statement my predecessor undertook to consider with the Health and Safety Commission whether the proceedings of the committee should be held in public. We have carefully considered all the relevant factors and both the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission and I agree that it is a matter for the committee itself to decide how best to carry out its difficult task.
The committee contains many independent members, and the committee's report and the evidence given to it will be published by the Health and Safety Commission, which itself is independent. This will, we are quite convinced, adequately protect the public interest, whatever conclusions the committee come to on this issue.
I have also asked the Chairman that if the committee considers that there are any recommendations which it feels ought to be made in advance of its final report, interim reports should be submitted to the Health and Safety Commission on these aspects of its work so that the public may be kept informed of its progress.

Mr. Prior: In the interests of brevity, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman merely whether he is aware that the Opposition support the setting up of this Committee in the way in which it has been done? We believe it right that the committee should decide whether to sit in public and that the committee should decide whether, through the Health and Safety Commission, to make interim reports if necessary. We just want the committee to get on with its work as quickly as it can in this very important matter.

Mr. Booth: I very much welcome that response by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Strauss: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the terms of reference of this committee are wide enough? Is he aware that the recent regrettable incidents which have led to the setting up of this committee are part of a continuing history? Only a few years ago, in South London, particularly in my constituency, a number of people died from asbestos poisoning because of a company operating in Bermondsey, and it was then shown that not only was this the result of gross neglect on the part of the company but it was also the result of a gross

neglect on the part of the inspector from the Department of Industry at the time, who did not tell the truth to the public or the Minister. Can my right hon. Friend assure us, therefore, that what happened on that occasion will be looked into carefully to ensure that the same difficulties and faults that then existed have been overcome and do not exist today?

Mr. Booth: I am satisfied that the terms of reference are wide enough. I believe that they will enable this body to examine the medical aspects of the problem to discover whether there are satisfactory means of monitoring levels of asbestos in industrial and other environments and that the committee will be able to look at methods by which the problem can be controlled and to inquire into the production and use of asbestos.

Mr. Churchill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the establishment of a committee is no substitute whatever for action by the Government on this question? Is he further aware that it will not be accepted by the public, and in particular by workers who come into contact with this very dangerous material, that there is any justification whatever for the committee sitting in secret? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman state what action has been taken by the Government, following representations that have been made to the Department of Employment by myself and other hon. Members over two years, in regard to the principal violator of these regulations, namely the nationalised Central Electricity Generating Board, which has been sub-contracting to certain firms that do not implement the safety regulations applicable to CEGB employees when it comes to stripping the lagging from power stations?

Mr. Booth: A very thorough inquiry has been made into all of these serious allegations, both in the interests of health and safety and to ascertain to what extent our current regulations are adequate. I believe that this committee, bringing a very special expertise to bear on the problem, can be most helpful in giving some public guidance and in enabling the House to take decisions whether we want to introduce further statutory regulations and what type of machinery we require in Britain to improve health and safety standards in this area.

Mr. Madden: Can the Secretary of State say whether he has fully considered


Early-Day Motion No. 326 standing on the Order Paper in my name and those of 155 hon. and right hon. Members calling for this inquiry to be wholly independent and fully public, and will he he also assure the House that this inquiry and suggest that all its proceedings should be public and that all the evidence submitted to it should be published? Will he also assure the House that this inquiry will consider health risks associated with material used to replace asbestos and the organisation of the Factory Inspectorate, which is highly relevant and to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) has already drawn attention? Will he make these views known to the Health and Safety Commission, because if the public are to be reassured they must have maximum confidence in this inquiry and its final report?

Mr. Booth: I have discussed with the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission the Early-Day Motion to which my hon. Friend refers. If this were an inquiry into a particular incident, such as that at Flixborough, it would be a different matter. There would be a clear-cut issue on which it would be appropriate to instruct the inquiry that all the evidence and all the proceedings must be public. But this is an inquiry dealing with a far more wide-ranging issue, and in these circumstances it would be wrong to issue such an instruction.
Those involved in the inquiry must be able to decide how they can most quickly and expeditiously deal with matters, whether they should set up separate working groups and co-opt people, and what evidence they should be able to take privately and what publicly. But it is my understanding from a discussion with the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission that he would commend to the inquiry that all its written evidence is made available in its written report.

Mr. Newton: Is the Secretary of State aware that public concern has become even greater since his original announcement and that what he has said today will be much welcomed on both sides of the House? In view of the greater concern, will he not now take steps to make sure that no new proposals for dumping asbestos, in Essex or anywhere

else, will be allowed to go ahead until this committee has reported or at the very least until we have the views of the technical sub-group that is now operating in the Department of the Environment?

Mr. Booth: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's remarks and I accept that the matter has become an issue of greater urgency since we first turned our attention to it, which is why I attach great importance to the inquiry being able to publish its recommendations as quickly as the inquiry and we would wish, before completion of its full study. On the issue of dumping, which is currently a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, I will undertake to discuss with him the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the whole of the report and the whole of the evidence is to be published? Secondly, will he agree with me that it is desirable that he should add his personal recommendation to the Committee that its hearings should be in public, and will he confirm that subgroups will be set up, particularly to investigate the lagging industry and also the use by local authorities of asbestos installation in schools and other public buildings?

Mr. Booth: I assure my hon. Friend that the indication that I have already given as to the kind of arrangements that can be covered within the terms of reference of the inquiry would indicate the need to set up quite a considerable number of sub-groups. It will be a matter for those conducting the inquiry how they take evidence on these matters.
I have judged it not wise to insist at this stage on issuing any instruction that all the evidence taken must be made public. Members of the committee may well wish to take evidence which will contain allegations which they may want to check or to verify before determining whether it should be a matter for publication. But in terms of the written evidence, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission and myself indicated to the inquiry that we would wish to see that form of evidence made available with its. report.

Mr. Henderson: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance today that all these inquiries will be held in public? Will he at least undertake to convey to the chairman of the committee the very strong feelings of all hon. Members on all sides of the House that it should conduct all its business in public, since there seems to have been too much of a cover-up in relation to this matter previously? Since many authorities on this subject live overseas—in the United States, Sweden and elsewhere—can he give an assurance that adequate funds will be at the disposal of the committee to enable it to bring the best experts in the world here to give us the benefit of their knowledge and advice?

Mr. Booth: May I make it crystal clear that there is no question of a cover-up involved here. I believe that when the hon. Gentleman reads the list of those who have accepted the invitation and have undertaken to serve on this inquiry he will realise that they are not the kind of people who would lend themselves to a cover-up and that they will do their duty fully and thoroughly and deal with the matter in a highly responsible way. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will reserve judgment until he has examined the list of people who will be concerned in the inquiry.

Mr. Radice: While welcoming this inquiry, may I ask my hon. Friend whether my own union, the General and Municipal Workers, which has a large membership among laggers and other construction workers, is represented on the committee?

Mr. Booth: Yes. I can give that undertaking. I can inform my hon. Friend that we have already considered this and that the General and Municipal Workers' Union may well wish to assist the inquiry, both by providing individual people and with the advice of its organisation to the group which will be dealing with the particular area in which that union's members have special concern.
I omitted to answer the question put by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) about overseas experience. I am convinced that the terms of reference of the committee and the people who have accepted an invita-
tion to serve on it will be such as to ensure that comparison will be made with the best standards operating in this field overseas.

Mr. Sainsbury: Can the Secretary of State assure us, on that point, that adequate funds will be available? The Government have already been asked to ensure that the committee takes into account environmental research and knowledge on this subject in other countries. Can he also say whether the committee, if it thinks fit, can commission short-term research projects?

Mr. Booth: From my discussions with the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission I have no reasons to think that there is any problem of shortage of funds. I will undertake to look at the point and to ensure that the work of the Commission is not impeded by lack of finance.

Mr. English: Will my hon. Friend endeavour to introduce a little perspective into the attitude of hon. Members opposite, such as those making party political points on this highly unsuitable issue? Is he aware that asbestos has been in use in this country for nearly a century, that it has been known to be dangerous for most of this century and that in the course of that time it has killed far fewer than have died from other developments in that period, for example, the motor car?

Mr. Booth: It is certainly the case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has said, that this danger has long been known. This House most recently introduced regulation proposals in 1969. It is now high time that we had this matter examined in depth by experts in the field, so that we may consider whether further legislation is necessary.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman do his best to ensure that the need for particular action is not lost in the general inquiry and if it appears that the inquiry will take a rather long time, will he actively encourage the committee to produce interim reports which might recommend changes in legislation immediately?

Mr. Booth: I will certainly undertake to do that.

Following is the information:—
The following persons have agreed to serve on the Committee: —
Professor E. D. Acheson, Dean, Faculty of Medicine, Southampton University. Professor of Clinical Epidemiology.
Mr. A. C. Blygnton, Secretary, Legal Department, Transport and General Workers' Union.
The Hon. Paul Bradbury, Chairman, CBI Safety, Health and Welfare Committee. Lately Personnel Director, Imperial Group Limited.
Dr. J. S. Gilson, CBE, Director, Medical Research Pneumoconiosis Unit, Penarth. Acting in an independent capacity.
Mr. H. D. S. Hardie, OBE, Director, Turner and Newall Limited.
Mr. W. Lewis, Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians.
Mr. A. Lomas, National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers.
Professor A. Mair, Professor of Community and Occupational Medicine, Dundee University.
Dr. M. Molyneux, Occupational Hygienist, Institute of Naval Medicine.
Dr. C. J. Stairmand, OBE, Consultant Chemical Engineer and Physicist.
Dr. J. Steel, Consultant to WHO in Industrial Hygiene. Senior Lecturer, Nuffield Department of Industrial Health, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Consultant in Occupational Hygiene to the North of England Health Service.
Mr. F. G. Sugden, MBE, Chief Environmental Health Officer, Middlesbrough.
Professor M. Turner-Warwick, Professor of Medicine (Thoracic Medicine), University of London. Consultant Physician to Brompton and London Chest Hospital.
Mr. A. W. Ure, Member CBI Safety and Health Panel. Member Royal Commission on Compensation for Personal Injury. Director, Trollope and Colls Limited.
Mrs. R. Waterhouse, Member of National Consumer Council. Member of Council of Consumer Associations.
The committee will start work without delay and anyone who wishes to give evidence to it should write to:
The Secretary of the Asbestos Committee, The Health and Safety Commission, Baynards House, 1 Chepstow Place, London, w2 4TF.

COLLEGES OF EDUCATION(SCOTLAND)

4.0 p.m.

Mrs. Bain: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the critical situation existing at the present time in Scottish colleges of education.
The matter is specific and important in that it affects the future lives of highly trained and skilled young people in whom a great deal of public money has been invested and who were recruited to training colleges in the fond belief that jobs would await them when their courses were completed. Despite that, a vast number of students due to qualify this summer face the immediate prospect of unemployment.
At one college, Jordanhill in Glasgow, which serves the vast Strathclyde Region, 286 out of 438 primary diploma students still had not found posts by last Friday, and this pattern is reflected throughout the whole of Scotland. This is even more important when one bears in mind that Scotland has the largest areas of deprivation in the whole of the United Kingdom and that education should be seen as one means of eradicating this poverty and of giving real equality of opportunity.
The matter is increasingly urgent because four colleges of education in Scotland have already been occupied by students with the support of their lecturers, and others are likely to follow suit later this week. This is likely to lead to the possible disruption of the examination situation in those colleges and is causing great concern.
The overall effects of this situation are such that the morale of teachers and students in Scotland is so low that it merits that this House should discuss the situation immediately.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the critical situation existing at the present time in Scottish colleges of education.


As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reason for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representations which the hon. Lady has made, but I have to rule that her submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit her application to the House.

COMPREHENSIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Grocott (Lichfield and Tamworth): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to end distinctions between the various types of educational institutions that cater for people over 18 years of age, and to provide for a genuinely comprehensive system of higher education under democratic control.
During the last decade there has been an explosion in the provision of facilities for people wanting to take courses in higher education. Perhaps I might quote one or two figures. In 1964–65 there were 274,000 places for post-A-level ONC students in full-time courses in colleges up and down the country. By 1974–75 there were 497,000 of these places. That represents an increase of nearly 100 per cent. These places were available in a bewildering variety of institutions. I cannot go into them in detail, but at the moment there are some 43 universities, including the Open University, 30 polytechnics and 595 other institutions variously described as further education colleges, technical colleges and the like, and we now have the added complication of what we refer to as "centres for higher education".
Before I indulge in the critical part of my comments, I wish to say plainly that I support the growth in higher education which has taken place. It has brought an enormous benefit to people who otherwise would not have had any kind of facilities, as their parents had no facilities, to take advantage of higher education. What is more—this is enormously important to me and to many of my hon. Friends—it gives the lie to those who feel that there is a very strict limit to the ability and poten-

tial of our people and that only a few can achieve excellent standards in educational attainment. Even when it was first suggested that the universities should be expanded, there were those who said that there was a severe limit to the number of people who could take and profit from higher education courses.
Having said that I support the growth which has taken place, I think it is reasonable now to assess whether we have the right structure in higher education, bearing in mind that the system has grown rather like Topsy, not exactly unplanned but in such a way that no one could have foreseen the structure which exists today.
My view is that it is not the right structure. It is based on a tripartite system, for want of a better expression, of different types of institutions, many of which have very feeble distinctions between them. This is bad in principle because it leads to mistakes in the allocation, I do so as one who has worked in of resources.
If I suggest that we should take stock of the present structure of higher education, I do so as one who has worked in it for much of the last decade. Looking first at the universities, in my view they are probably more uncertain than at any time in their history about what exactly they should be doing, where they should be going, what their status is vis-à-vis the polytechnics, and so on. For this reason, university lecturers are very uncertain of their status and are anxious that they should not be in competition with the polytechnics. These are issues which are debated in universities today and which were never debated before.
It might be said that in the polytechnics there is the greatest uncertainty of all, because they have been subjected to the greatest growth of all. Polytechnics think that they are different from universities, but in practical terms most of the time they ape the universities. In my view they concentrate quite wrongly almost entirely on full-time courses, to the detriment of day-release students, block-release students and part-time students. All the forces within the polytechnics are there to see that they should do this and that their staff should concentrate on the more advanced work which is often the more prestigious work, often the more highly paid work and


often the kind of work which results in higher gradings and the like. Therefore, the polytechnics, too, are uncertain about their position.
To some extent the same is true of the colleges of further education and the technical colleges. They have found their position threatened and diminished in many ways during the last decade, with much of their more prestigious work being poached by neighbouring polytechnics and other higher education institutions. Perfectly good work which formerly was done in further education colleges can be done no more, for no very good reason that I can see.
I emphasise that in many ways the structure of higher education that we have is the kind of tripartite system which rightly in my view we have rejected at 11-plus. It is tripartite with the universities being, in a sense, the grammar schools, with the polytechnics being in some respects the technical schools and with the further education colleges being the secondary moderns. This is wrong in principle for reasons which I have not time to elaborate upon now. But it is very bad in terms of the allocation of resources. I commend that view to hon. Members who may not agree with my principles.
That means that in one region—I apply it to my own region, the West Midlands, and hon. Members can apply it to their own regions—we have universities and polytechnics independently and separately funded and independently pursuing their own course structures often without reference to one another, often in conflict with one another, and often, as a result, making excessive provision in certain subjects and none at all in others. That is an unacceptable state of affairs from the point of view of the rational use of resources, and it is a bad system to have in existence.
The further education colleges also find themselves threatened by the existing tipartite system, especially now that we have centres for higher education coming into existence. More and more, the further education colleges feel that they are the poor relations in terms of the allocation of funds and the provision of prestigious courses.
The present tripartite system is bad in principle and wasteful of public money. I know that Opposition Members are

especially concerned about this. It is wasteful in terms of the allocation of funds and, therefore, it is a system we should reject.
The short-term provisions of my Bill would have the effect of bringing the universities into the same planning system at a regional level as the polytechnics and the further education colleges for the provision of new courses and would ensure closer consultation at a regional level to ensure that funds were allocated properly.
In the longer term my Bill would provide, under the scrutiny and decision of Parliament, for the establishment of a proper regional basis for the higher education system, abolishing the distinction between the universities, polytechnics and colleges of further education and providing for a comprehensive base such as one has at primary and secondary school levels. I think that this proposal is right in principle, is good so far as economy and value for money are concerned and, above all, is desirable from the point of view of the future provision of our children and students in the generations to come.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. David Lane: (Cambridge) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to oppose?

Mr. Lane: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) and I work together on other less controversial educational causes and I hope that we shall continue to do so, but on this occasion I must part company with him. I share much of his dissatisfaction with the present situation but I come to a different conclusion, because I fear that his Bills, as outlined, would lead to a comprehensive shambles—more confusion and less education. I hope that the House will reject the motion.
To state my objections in general terms, I feel that higher education today is in a tender state and needs a period of consolidation and sympathetic care. By contrast, the Bill would create turmoil and distract attention from the real problems.
To some extent we can draw a parallel with the situation in our schools. The most pressing problem in education today is to improve standards for the majority


of our children—already about two in every three—who are being, and are likely to continue to be, educated in comprehensive schools. I am glad that this aim is at the top of my party's agenda for education. Yet the Government's insistence on forcing the pace by compelling comprehensive reorganisation will prove a serious distraction from more urgent problems. I fear that the Bill would do the same in higher education.
I fear, too, that the effect will be a lowering of academic standards in higher education. Drawing conclusions from what the hon. Gentleman said, and also from the 1973 Green Paper issued by the Labour Party, I fear that there will be a rise in the number of unmotivated students and in the wastage rate in this country, which has hitherto been one of the lowest in the world. We should stick rather to the Robbins' principle that
Courses in higher education should be available for all who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and who wish to do so.
In the years since the war, as the hon. Gentleman said, there has been a vast increase in the number of students and a dramatic widening of educational opportunities, with the universities in particular open to a larger cross-section of the population than ever before.
Looking around higher education today we see the universities, the crown of our educational system, struggling to keep up their standards despite financial restrictions and the apparent hostility of this Government. It is true that the threat of "manpower planning" associated with Lord Crowther-Hunt has apparently been removed, but morale remains very low.
We see the polytechnics doing much good work but in some uncertainty about their future roôle. They have shown a tendency to drift towards becoming mini-universities and to shed some of their lower level work. Too much effort has been given to arts subjects and too little to scientific and technical. We see, as the hon. Gentleman said, many colleges of further education doing fine work in advanced courses, including one in my own constituency. Lastly, we see the colleges of education going through an awkward period of adjustment and amalgamation.
At this difficult time, I would suggest a few aims of policy which are very different from the drastic treatment urged by the hon. Gentleman. First, there should be a distinctive roôle for the different institutions, especially universities and polytechnics. Each sector needs the other, and the nation needs the diversity they offer. Secondly, nothing should be done which would dilute the quality of university work, whether in teaching or research, or cause further damage to university morale. There must be no sacrifice of the fundamental values and freedoms which are essential to university life.
Thirdly, the present wasteful duplication through too many courses being offered in too many institutions must be reduced. Fourthly, there should be a gradual growing together of the different institutions in partnership; more cross-fertilisation and a sharing of facilities: and a greater flexibility in the system, perhaps through more modular degrees and transferable credits. Fifthly, outside the universities there should be a greater emphasis on day release and part-time work.
Sixthly, there should be—I am with the hon. Gentleman up to a point here—a review of the system of allocating resources. In particular, the present pooling arrangements for advanced further education and higher education, mean that there is no direct line of responsibility between the local authorities which provide the money and the institutions which receive it. I believe that we should consider seriously, as one possible solution, the creation of a Further Education Grants Committee for non-university institutions. This could co-ordinate the use of resources at national level and on a longer time-scale than hitherto, and it could help to reduce the duplication of courses, which we all want. It could work closely and share some common services with the University Grants Committee. But any such arrangements must not supplant the local connections and possibly also the regional connections which are so valuable for institutions of higher and further education.
It is along lines such as these that I believe we should seek solutions to the problems in higher education today. The Bill, in my judgment, would not provide solutions but would create new problems.
In particular it would be a recipe for more waste and duplication. For all these reasons, I ask the house to refuse leave for such an unwise piece of legislation.

Mr. Paul Channon (Southend, West): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would ask you, when you are considering this debate, whether you could have the annunciators examined. My hon. Friend has been speaking admirably for about 10 minutes, yet the annunciator still records the name of the previous speaker.

Division No. 142]
AYES
[4.19 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Archer, Peter
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Radice, Giles


Atkinson, Norman
Grocott, Bruce
Reid, George


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Harper, Joseph
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Bates, Alf
Hatton, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bean, R. E.
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Rooker, J. W.


Beith, A. J.
Heffer, Eric S.
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Bidwell, Sydney
Henderson, Douglas
Rowlands, Ted


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hooley, Frank
Sedgemore, Brian


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hooson, Emlyn
Selby, Harry


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Brown, Hugh D (Provan)
Hunter, Adam
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Silverman, Julius


Buchan, Norman
Janner, Greville
Skinner, Dennis


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Small, William


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Spearing, Nigel


Canavan, Dennis
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Spriggs, Leslie


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Stallard, A. W.


Cartwright, John
Kaufman, Gerald
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Kelley, Richard
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Cohen, Stanley
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Stewart, Pt Hon M. (Fulham)


Coleman, Donald
Lamond, James
Stoddart, David


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Stott, Roger


Concannon, J. D.
Leadbitter, Ted
Taylor, Mrs. Ann (Bolton W)


Corbett, Robin
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lipton. Marcus
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Litterick, Tom
Thompson, George


Crawford, Douglas 
Loyden, Eddie
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Cryer, Bob
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Tierney, Sydney


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
McCartney, Hugh
Torney, Tom


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Urwin, T. W.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McNamara, Kevin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Dempsey, James
Madden, Max
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Edge, Geoff
Maynard, Miss Joan
Watkins, David


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mikardo, Ian
Weitzman, David


English, Michael
Millan, Bruce
Welsh, Andrew


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Whitlock, William


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Moonman, Eric
Wigley, Dafydd


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Newens, Stanley
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Flannery, Martin
Noble, Mike
Williams, Sir Thomas


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Freeson, Reginald
Ovenden, John
Woodall, Alec


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Pardoe, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Park, George
Young, David (Bolton E)


George, Bruce
Parry. Robert



Ginsburg David
Pavitt, Laurie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Golding, John
Penhaligon, David
Mr. George Rodgers and


Graham, Ted
Perry, Ernest
Mr. Ivor Clemitson.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Awdry, Daniel


Aitken, Jonathan
Arnold, Tom
Baker, Kenneth


Alison, Michael
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Banks, Robert

That must mean that anyone outside who wished to listen to this debate has been misled.

Mr. Speaker: I shall have inquiries made.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring i0n Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 170. Noes 182.

Benyon, W.
Holland, Philip
Page, John (Harrow West)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hordern, Peter
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Blaker, Peter
Howell, David (Gulldford)
Parkinson, Cecil


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Percival, Ian


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes(Brent)
Hurd, Douglas
Pink, R. Bonner


Brains, Sir Bernard
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Brittan, Leon
Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jessel, Toby
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Raison, Timothy


Budgen, Nick
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rathbone, Tim


Burden, F. A.
Jopling, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Channon, Paul
Knox, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Churchill, W. S.
Lamont, Norman
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lane, David
Ridsdale, Julian


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rifkind, Malcolm


Clegg, Walter
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, NW)


Cockcroft, John
Lawrence, Ivan
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lawson, Nigel
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cope, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sainsbury, Tim


Cormack, Patrick
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Carrie, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott, Nicholas


Costain, A. P.
Lloyd, Ian
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Luce, Richard
Shepherd, Colin


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shersby, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
MacCormick, Iain
Silvester, Fred


Drayson, Burnaby
McCrindle, Robert
Sinclair, Sir George


Dunlop, John
McCusker, H.
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Durant, Tony
Macfarlane, Neil
Speed, Keith


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
MacGregor, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McNair-Wilson. M. (Newbury)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Elliott, Sir William
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Emery, Peter
Marten, Neil
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fyre Reginald
Mates, Michael
Stokes, John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mather, Carol
Stradling Thomas, J


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tugendhat, Christopher


Forman, Nigel
Mayhew, Patrick
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Fraser, Fit Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Wakeham, John


Fry, Peter
Mills, Peter
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Moate, Roger
Wall, Patrick


Goodhart, Philip
Molyneaux, James
Walters, Dennis


Goodhew, Victor
Monro, Hector
Weatherill, Bernard


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wells, John


Gray, Hamish
Morgan, Geraint
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Grist, Ian
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Wiggin, Jerry


Hall, Sir John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Winterton, Nicholas


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neave, Airey
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Nelson, Anthony
Younger, Hon George


Hawkins, Paul
Newton, Tony



Hayhoe, Barney
Nott, John
FELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hicks, Robert
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Marcus Kimball and


Higgins, Terence L.
Osborn, John



Question accordingly negatived.

COUNCIL AND NEW TOWN HOUSES (SALE)

4.29 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I beg to move,
That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to give positive encouragement to local authorities to sell council houses to their tenants and to withdraw their ban on the sale of New Town houses.

Mr. Speaker: I have to tell the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Raison: On 28th April, I moved a motion saying that the new councils which were about to be elected would best serve both ratepayers and taxpayers through, among other things, the sale of council houses to tenants. We lost the vote that evening, but we decisively won the vote on 6th May. That was a remarkable victory. A string of great cities and districts have come under Conservative control—Birmingham, Nottingham, Cardiff, Southampton, Dudley, Leicester, Oldham, Derby, Oxford, Exeter and many others. Leeds, of course, has come fully under Conservative control.
Commentators have tended to interpret the results in line with national politics. I have no doubt that a substantial part of the reason for our successes relates to our policies for local government. There were different issues and campaigns in each area across the country but we stressed certain themes in debates in Parliament and in party political broadcasts.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: (South Angus) rose—

Mr. Raison: We have only two-and-a-half hours left for the debate, and I cannot give way.
We stressed certain themes in Parliament, in broadcasts, in speeches and in election literature. One of those themes was the sale of council and New Town houses to tenants. The public clearly

responded and are still responding with enthusiasm. There is no doubt about the impact of our policies in cities such as Birmingham, Southampton and even the Prime Minister's own town of Cardiff. We did particularly well in New Town areas where the Government's ban on the sale of new town houses has seemed particularly doctrinaire. Bracknell, Northampton, Peterborough, Redditch, West Lancashire, Chorley, Corby, Milton Keynes, Welwyn and Hatfield and Dacorum—all New Town councils—came under Conservative control. That makes my first point—that the sale of council houses and new town houses is a popular policy and it is none the worse for that.
There is ample evidence of what I am saying from research but what is more impressive is the evidence of what people do when they are given the chance to buy. Under the last Conservative administration, council house sales were 16,000 in 1971, 45,000 in 1972 and 33,000 in 1973. Under our administration sales in the New Towns were 2,700 in 1971, 15,500 in 1972 and 7,200 in 1973. What happened when Labour came to power? Last year only 2,089 council houses were sold in England and Wales and the Government have introduced an absolute ban on the sale of New Town houses.

Sir Thomas Williams: (Warrington) rose—

Mr. Raison: I shall give way just once but we have only two-and-a-half hours for this important debate.

Sir Thomas Williams: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) is taking great pride in the number of New Town houses which have been sold. Will he acquaint the House with how vast was the increase as a result in the number of weeks people had to remain on New Town waiting lists? As a result of that policy many people were asked to wait as long as 65 weeks.

Mr. Raison: I shall come to that, but I cannot agree with what the hon. and learned Member has said.
The attitude of the Government is only one factor. Economic factors and the price of houses are also important. A Government can do much to encourage or discourage. We encouraged sales


while the Labour Government have discouraged them and in the New Towns have forbidden them altogether. They have checked people from doing what they want to do.
The sale of houses is a popular policy but it is not the only reason for it. In adding to the stock of human happiness, the sale of council houses does not diminish the overall stock of houses and it does little to diminish the stock of publicly owned houses. Sales are to sitting tenants who live in the house and who will mostly remain there. Some would move but the number of re-lets in the public sector is low.
In an article in the Financial Times of 12th May Joe Rogaly said that the number of re-lets was between 3 per cent. and 10 per cent. and that if 100,000 houses were sold in a year the total so-called loss would be only between 3,000 and 10,000 out of a total stock of 5 million. The pre-emption clauses are also an important way of preserving the council's house stock where there is a need to do so.
There are other major advantages, in particular the commitment to maintain and improve houses, which is a common characteristic of those who buy their own council houses. We are all worried about the quality of our housing stock and there is ample experience to show that when people buy their own house they have an added commitment to keep it in good shape. There is also an added sense of independence amongst those who buy their own houses. We all know about Frank Field's remarks about the "serfdom" of council tenure. Joe Rogaly made a similar point in an article in the Financial Times. He said:
The financial point of selling council houses is to shift the responsibility for management and maintenance from inefficient councils to inevitably more efficient individuals. The main social purpose is to give the tenants, most of whom are treated like recalcitrant children, the same dignities and security of tenure as owner-occupiers or borrower-occupiers".
Maybe Mr. Field and Mr. Rogaly stated their cases colourfully, but there can be no doubt about what they say. who cannot be worried by the municipal quasi-monopolies that we see in some areas, and by the sheer lack of choice. In some parts of the country, particularly in New Towns, we desperately need to
achieve a better social balance. The sale of houses is an effective way of bringing that about.
What about the financial aspects of the argument? At least, the removal of the cost of management and maintenance represents a significant saving which is estimated at about £100 per house a year. I am not arguing that the total cost would disappear but there would be a significant saving. It is also true that the payment which people make when they buy these houses has a positive effect on public expenditure. Revenue from sales in 1972–73 amounted to £351 million. By 1975–76 it had fallen by over £300 million at 1975 survey prices.
Against that, substantial mortgage money will be needed to finance sales, and much of that will come via the local authority out of public funds. That money has to be repaid over the years and revenue will therefore be coming in and will not be the same as the outgoings on these houses by local authorities. It is important to point out that the Building Societies Association has no qualms about a policy of selling council houses. In evidence to the Government's Housing Finance Review the Association said:
The Association recognises that the sale of council houses must form an integral part of housing policy if the wishes of the public are to be transferred into reality'.
In The Guardian of 15th May, Judy Hillman says:
Analyses have shown that sales have little impact on rent pooling. But it is the social and human advantages that really matter, including the ability to let people achieve home ownership without having to move.
Why are the Government being so pigheaded about it? Why do they not realise that their obsession with social ownership deprives many people of what they want? Evidence for their pig-headedness is to be found in the way they introduced a total ban on the sale of New Town houses in 1974. As the Minister for Planning and Local Government knows, the waiting list argument on which their theory was based has largely disappeared. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) asked a question about waiting lists on 31st March. Let me reveal to hon. Members who shout "rubbish", that the waiting time for a house in Bracknell is two to four weeks, in Milton Keynes it is eight to 12 weeks, in Northampton four to


eight weeks and in Peterborough one to two weeks. What possible justification can there be in such areas for refusing to sell the New Town houses?

Mr. Douglas Jay: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a family on the housing list in a London area can obtain a house in those New Towns in the time he has just described?

Mr. Raison: I am indeed. The problem is that the Government's economic problems have produced a situation in which such people cannot obtain a job, but there is no reason why the houses should not be sold there.
In the Standing Committee which has been considering the New Towns (Amendment) Bill the Minister for Planning and Local Government has acknowledged that in some areas the figures have fallen dramatically, but he is still not prepared to do anything about the matter. The Government are being almost equally mulish about the sale of council houses, backed by their friends in local government, many of whom, happily, have now been dismissed.
As we have seen in the Press in recent days, there may be signs of a change of heart by the Government. In an article headed
Home Rule for Council Tenants",
the Daily Express said last Friday that apparently the Prime Minister is giving orders to his colleagues to go ahead on the sale of council houses. That story has been denied, but that there may be something in it. I suspect that the Prime Minister is rather worried about what happened in Cardiff.
It is interesting that the Prime Minister dodged the issue when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised it at Question Time on 11th May. My right hon. Friend asked:
Does the Prime Minister recollect that towards the end of his speech he spoke not of controlling inflation but of creating other values which are generally appealing? Does he accept that as the recent local elections show, many council tenants wish to own the homes they live in? Will he give the House an assurance that his Government will do nothing to prevent the sale of council houses to council tenants?".—[Official Report, 11th May 1976; Vol. 911, c. 224]
The Prime Minister did not answer but ducked those questions as best he, could. That lends support to the view that some-

thing may be stirring in his mind. If something is stirring, our motion gives the Government a chance to announce a change of policy today. We have phrased it with the greatest moderation, and the Government have only to accept it. There will then be rejoicing for the sinners that repent.
However, the Government have produced an amendment that I can only describe as vacuous and platitudinous. I shall simply comment on three points. First, the Government say that they want to see
the widest possible choice of tenure".
I quite agree with that. Our criticism is that the Government are not encouraging choice. They are blocking it in this respect and others.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann (Mitcham, and Morden): is the hon. Gentleman talking about selling council houses at market value or giving away the better houses to better-off tenants at a discount? Obviously the latter course will be very popular. But he does not seem to be clearly advocating it, though it is the course his friends in local authorities have been pursuing. What is he talking about?

Mr. Raison: If the hon. Gentleman will wait a moment, he will have an answer.
Secondly, the Government say in their amendment that decisions should be made "locality by locality". But they are not implementing that belief. There is no locality-by-locality decision to allow the sale of New Town houses. No New Town houses are being sold and there is no encouragement to sell in local authority areas where there is no shortage.
Thirdly, the Government ask the House to welcome:
Her Majesty's Government's continuing examination of this matter".
There certainly is a continuing examination of the matter. It sounds to me rather like a Fabian version of Trotsky's permanent revolution. What we need is not continuing examination but a little action.
The Government's amendment does not stand up. Our motion gives the Government the chance to get off the hook and to use the existing conditions of sale to sell houses. Perhaps that is as much


as we can hope to obtain from the present Government, unless the Daily Express is right. I confess that I am rather gloomy about getting even that degree of common sense out of them. After all, the new Secretary of State has made his parliamentary reputation as a defender of one lost cause—refusal to enter the Common Market. It would be rather sad if he espoused another.
The right hon. Gentleman also has a reputation for Socialism through misery to add to that of the Minister for Housing and Construction. It is rather like bringing in the melancholy Jaques to jolly along Malvolio. We can but hope that the Government will see the error of their ways and accept our motion, which gives them the chance to get off the hook.
In fact, my party believes in going further. We are committed, and have been for some time, to establishing a right for council tenants to buy in normal circumstances. For flats that may mean leasehold, and there are certain special forms of housing—for example, for the disabled or old people—which it may not be appropriate to dispose of. Moreover, many tenants will not want to buy. There will be an important continuing role for local authorities and a continuing substantial local authority housing stock. But the broad principle of the right to buy is one to which we are fully committed.
The terms will certainly not be less favourable than the present terms—that is, the 20 per cent. discount, the preemption clause which allows local authorities to buy back during the first five years, and the rule that the price must not be below the original cost of the house. But The Times said in an interesting article today that there is a case for a somewhat greater discount. Indeed, approximately 30 per cent. Off is what we have in mind. We must remember that in the private sector there is normally a substantial discount for a sale to a sitting tenant.
The sale of the houses is only one aspect of total housing policy. There are other major needs, including the need to ease movement generally into home ownership, the necessity to build for special needs, and the need to restore sense to the private rented sector, which is one way to increase the rented stock.
Moreover, I entirely accept that a full-scale programme of sales will represent a substantial task if it is to be implemented effectively. We shall have to work hard to make sure that mortgages are available and to develop new ways of borrowing for those whose incomes are on the border line. But at least we are assured of the building societies' support in principle. Interesting experiments are already taking place to try to help low-income groups into home ownership.
I do not want to encourage those who cannot afford home ownership to buy homes. But of the supreme desirability of the goal for very many I have no doubt. We can take a major step in that direction today by passing the motion and rejecting the Government's stale red herring of an amendment.

4.49 p.m.

The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): I beg to move to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
recognising the desirability of encouraging the widest possible choice of tenure including owner occupation, equity sharing, co-operatives and renting, considers that the question of whether public sector houses should be sold to their occupiers should be decided locality by locality in the light of serious and unbiased consideration of the housing needs of the area concerned and welcomes Her Majesty's Government's continuing examination of this matter both in relation to local authorities and to new towns.
Let me start by saying what this debate is not about. Whatever the Opposition may say, ii is not about the principle of owner-occupation. Most people dream of having a home of their own, and why should they not? All the same, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) has in the past related the Opposition's attitude to the sale of council houses to an implication that the Labour Party is opposed to owner-occupation. Forget the rhetoric. Examine the facts.
The Labour Government of 1964 inherited in England and Wales an owner-occupation figure of only 45 per cent.—and this after a period of 13 uninterrupted years of Tory rule. By 1970. when Labour left office, the percentage of owner-occupation had risen to 50 per cent. In the four years of Conservative rule that followed, the figure of owner-occupation went up to just over


52 per cent. It has in our short two years risen to over 53 per cent. Incidentally, someone one of these days will explain to me why the Tory Party, which now passionately advocates the sale of freeholds to council tenants, should have spent so many years opposing the Labour Party's policy of enabling leaseholders to purchase their freeholds.
Again, it is all very well to talk about encouraging owner-occupation, but any increase must depend upon an ability to buy. As the hon. Member for Aylesbury said, the Tories do not intend to encourage to buy those who cannot afford to buy. We know where they stand on that. So, let us examine the figures here. When the Conservatives took office in 1970, the average price of a new house in the United Kingdom was £4,975. By early 1974 this had leaped to nearly £11,000—an increase of 118 per cent. Or, if we take the South-East Region which includes, incidentally, quite a few of the New Towns which are the subject of this motion and the amendment, the average price had leapt from £6,223 to just under £14,000 by early 1974—an increase of 124 per cent. It is additionally to the credit of the Labour Government that they have from early 1974 to the end of 1975 reduced the rate of increase to just over 10 per cent., and in the South-East Region to 6 per cent.
These facts alone make hollow the Conservative Party's allegations that it is the party of owner-occupation and that the Labour Government are opposed to it. No. It is in the context of a Government who believe in owner-occupation and do not have to prove their credentials that the Government look at the whole housing question—and look at it responsibly. A responsible Government must always have two factors in mind—need and choice.
First, then, as to need, we believe it important to consider this matter in the light of local circumstances and needs. It is wrong to have an indiscriminate approach. In each locality we have to consider the housing needs before we can take any decision whether public sector housing should be sold. The New Towns provide a good illustration of the problem. In New Towns, as in the local authority field, the position varies from locality to locality.
Since I stopped the sales of rented houses just over two years ago in the New Towns we have seen the period for which people have to wait for a house come tumbling down. This was what we set out to do, and we have done it. I have all along made it clear that I would keep the situation under review and that we would consider starting sales again where this could be done without harm to those people whose only hope of a decent home is a house or flat for rent. Those words come from the consultation document of December 1974. There is nothing new about that.
I shall discuss with the New Town chairmen the arrangements for looking at the situation in each New Town individually. If in any New Town the average waiting period for those eligible for a New Town rented house is less than three months if the development corporation wished, we could, subject to proper consultations, start resuming sales. We would, of course, need to establish what conditions might be applied to such sales. For example, there might be a case for limiting them to tenants who had lived in a corporation dwelling for not less than, say, five years or some such period, and I shall be interested to learn the views of the New Town chairmen.
It will also be important to monitor the sales policy regularly so that we do not find ourselves again in the situation which I inherited from the Conservatives, with swollen waiting lists and lengthening waiting periods. Every quarter, therefore, we would look at each town individually to see whether, in the light of any changes in the average waiting period, sales ought to be slowed down for the time being—or resumed—or whether we should continue as before.
In the consultation document on New Towns which we published at the end of 1974 and from which I have quoted many times in the House, we spoke of the need for the New Towns to give more direct help to those in greatest housing need in the inner cities—those living in conditions of housing stress, the elderly, the disadvantaged, single-parent families and so on. I recently set out new tenancy allocation guidelines for the London New Towns to help meet that need. The sales of rented houses to those who are fortunate enough to be


able to buy the house they live in will provide capital receipts for the development corporations. Those in turn will help to finance further investment for the needs of the disadvantaged from the inner cities.
With this sort of all-round policy in the New Towns we shall have achieved the right balance between helping those who wish to own their own houses and making sure that there is a proper supply for those others who are looking for a house to rent, including more particularly those in greatest need.
In the light of that clear and unequivocal approach we are entitled to ask—and this time to get a reply—whether the Tory Party is advocating the right of tenants indiscriminately to purchase their houses without any proof that any provision will be made for housing the needy or that a single public-sector house will be added to the existing stock. For that is the implication of its argument and that is the implication of the embarrassed silence of the hon. Gentleman when my right hon. Friend and I pressed him three weeks ago in the debate on local government upon this very point. The silence, today, is as deafening as it was three weeks ago. We can draw our own conclusions.
Now, as to choice. It is quite remarkable how hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken to quoting Mr. Frank Field's latest pamphlet—or at least one small selected sub-paragraph from it. Now, this freely-bandied-about quotation contains a reference to
the serfdom imposed on tenants by their council tenancies".
Of course, it is the characteristic of serfdom that a serf is "attached to the soil" —that is, that he is unable to move from the area in which he lives. Certainly the Government accept that there should be as few obstacles as possible in the way of movement. To pretend, however, that freehold tenure is the only way to achieve that mobility is dishonest.
If the ownership of freehold is the only way out of serfdom, there are a very large number of hon. Gentleman living in happy serfdom in the large blocks of flats within a stone's throw of the Palace of Westminster.
Certainly, freehold tenure is one answer, but it is not the only answer. There are a number of other possibilities. The Government's amendment mentions some of them. We need to consider all such possibilities in our examination, including equity sharing and co-operative housing. We need to examine the extension of transfer arrangements between authorities so that tenants may move more freely to different parts of the country if need be, and the handing over of management of the housing estates to the tenants themselves.
As the House knows, the Government are looking at all these issues as part of the Housing Finance Review. But I want to give one word of warning. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to pretend that they are the apostles of the property-owning democracy. They have done precious little to make it come about.
Fortunately for both owner-occupiers and council tenants, Britain elected a Labour Government in 1974, and by our policies we were able to reduce the appalling rise in house prices. The passing of the Community Land Act and the imminence of the Development Land Tax —the necessary Socialist remedies to correct the Tory ills—will assist in this process—and, incidentally, will in particular provide additional land for owner-occupation and thus assist that very mobility between the public and private sectors for which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has called in his unselected amendment.
Not only should we remember how house prices rose under the Tories. Everyone buying his house through a mortgage will remember how only a very few years ago under the Tories mortgage interest rates rose from 8 per cent. to 11 per cent. in less than 18 months.
Even if the rise in house prices and the consequent rise in repayments is halted, that does not help the would-be purchaser if he cannot get a mortgage. The impudence of the Opposition never ceases to amaze me. In February 1974, there was no rush to buy houses. New houses had stood empty for months because nobody had the money to buy them. The Labour Government ended the mortgage famine by producing £500 million for the building societies—the


biggest fillip to owner-occupation in the history of this country—and by encouraging the local authorities to buy empty houses as well.
It is one of the ironies that it is our very success in stabilising prices, in building houses, in rescuing the mortgage market, that has given plausibility to the Tory propaganda of today.

Mr. Michael Latham: On a point of record, would the Minister say when the number of private starts or completions achieved under his Government will even remotely approach the level of the three full years of Conservative Government?

Mr. Silkin: The four years of Conservative Government? The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, perhaps better than most of his hon. Friends, the low base from which we started. We are doing very well, and the country knows it.
I hope that in supporting the Government in their amendment, the House will show its contempt for a party whose only achievement has been in the record number of disasters for which its housing policy is remembered.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Julian Amery: Not for the first time, the House has heard a historic speech from a Member of the Silkin dynasty. I listened with great interest to what the Minister said, because it seemed to me that his speech marked a historic step forward. The whole tone of the speech was a defence of a property-owning democracy and, indeed, an advocacy—admittedly not unconditional—of the transfer of property from the council to the individual or, as in the case of New Towns, from the State to the individual, where this can be properly arranged. We all welcome this. Whether it is an attempt to pinch our clothes while we are bathing or whether it is a true conversion remains to be seen.
I was very glad to hear the Minister eating his words about the prohibition on the sale of New Town housing. When I was at the Ministry of Housing, the Chairman of the Basildon Corporation did great work in facilitating the sale of housing, and I am glad that after a certain interval the Minister has returned to what I might call "the Amery way".
There is a growing feeling in the House that opposition to the sale of council houses is out of date. People expect to own their own television sets, their own motor cars and their own washing machines. Not to be able to own their own houses is an out-of-date idea. It puts them in the position of being under the orders of a local authority on whether they can keep pets or whether they can have their relations to stay. All these things are rather out of date.
There is also a growing understanding that subsidies, when they are given, should be given to people and not to bricks and mortar.
Even before 1972 and the Housing Finance Act, for which I was responsible, rents were going up steadily. Between 1949 and 1972 they increased by between 13 and 17 per cent. a year. With increases of that kind coming forward, it was unfair to ask people to pay them and be left at the end of the day with no right to an asset.
There is growing understanding that home ownership provides an opportunity to change one's job and go elsewhere, or to meet a misfortune if one arises. It is not the only means of mobility, but it is one of the greatest. If a person can trade in his house, go to the other end of the country and be sure of getting another house on a mortgage, or a second mortgage, this will help mobility. If a man cannot do that, all the retraining schemes count for nothing.
In his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said that this debate could give the Minister a chance to get off the hook, and up to a point he has tried to take that chance. But we have to be careful on this side of the House. When I was at the Ministry of Housing, my target was to set in motion a process which would take us from 50 per cent. owner-occupation to something like 75 to 80 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and I did everything we could to promote the sale of council houses as a means to that end. We had support from outstanding local government leaders such as Mr. Fieldhouse in Manchester, who first convinced the Department of the Environment that the sale of council houses at a 30 per cent. discount was appropriate


and financially sound. There were also Sir Francis Griffin, who first applied this idea, and the local authorities in Southampton and Basildon, which also put the concessions we were able to make into practice.
Even so, we only managed to sell 45,000 out of 5 million houses in 1972. Yet all the evidence was that the demand was a great deal higher. There were very big difficulties in our way and some of these were technical. The apparatus and bureaucracy in local government made it extremely difficult to get through the process of valuation and the transfer of deeds in the legal department within any reasonable time scale. Then there was the problem of cost. Even with 100 per cent. mortgages—at the time I am speaking of, the average value of a house was £4,000—and at a 10 per cent. mortgage rate, this was getting on for £8 or £9 a week. Even with a discount this was quite high.
With inflation today the problem is very much greater, and it will be much more difficult for people to find the £60 or £100 a month which would be required before discount. Even with the discount the sum will be very considerable.
It is not right to exploit tenants when wages are frozen by insisting on the market value, which in many cases is very much greater than the individual or pooled historic cost of the house in question.
There is no need for the authority to make fat profits. There will be a continuing need for some council housing, but there is no need for the authority to make a big profit as long as it makes sufficient to enable it to keep going. The aim should be to provide an equally good bargain for the tenant today as we could have provided in 1972, and one which at the same time will help to dismantle some of the enormous bureaucracy which is engaged in the management of local government housing.
We made a big step forward in 1972 when we went to the 30 per cent. discount in the sale of council houses under certain conditions. The Minister has sensed the mood of the country; and many of his colleagues are studying these questions very carefully. We should be cautious and beware of the danger of having our clothes pinched by the Labour

Party while we are bathing, but I do not think that that will be the case because a much more radical approach is needed than that advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester and myself in 1972.
I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury and his colleagues to look carefully at the proposals which my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester has put forward for giving away council houses where the tenant has been in occupation for 20 years or more, and to study the implications of the entire scheme which he has been developing. I understand that my right hon. Friend will not be speaking today because he has not yet developed all the details.
There are, of course, difficulties of principle about giving away public assets and difficulties in practice, particularly where newer properties are involved. I am not committing myself to my right hon. Friend's scheme, but there are variations on his theme which will require very careful study. For example, if a property is given away free after 20 years the different terms on which properties can be made over on a 10, 15 or 12-year basis need to be studied carefully.
I can say with some certainty from my experience that there are many cases where a discount much higher than 30 per cent.—perhaps 40 per cent., 50 per cent. Or even 60 per cent.—would be justified in terms of individual and pooled historic costs.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) will not only endorse the human, social and economic factors which make for our advocacy of the sale of council houses to tenants but will make it clear that neither bureaucracy nor inflation should defeat our purpose. We must, of course, lay it down that any tenant has the right to buy; but we shall also have to take a quantum jump to make sure that he can exercise that right in practice.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Ron Thomas: The decision that I and my wife made five or so years ago to purchase our council house was one which many of my hon. Friends, whose opinions I respect, cannot accept. They feel that the sale of council houses under any con-


ditions or at any price should not be supported by the Labour Party. I shall return to that point in a moment, but first I shall spend a few moments to deal with the Press campaign which was sparked off by the so-called revelation of our decision.
I am one of those—and there are many among my lion. Friends—who have one local newspaper in their constituency which spends its time in a personal smear campaign against the local MP. The newspaper in my constituency never discusses policies. It deals only in personalities. Day after day it reveals the rampages of what it calls "Red Ron" and it is preoccupied with reds under the bed or perhaps Marxists on the mattress. But that of course is one of the risks that we as politicians have to face, and I accept that.
We have a right, however, to expect that while we are away at the House of Commons our families are not harassed by newspapers such as this. I say to the Conservatives who put down the silly motion concerning my ownership of a council house that they should reflect how far they have contributed to that harassment of my family over the last few days.
When the newspaper decided to expose the story—there was no secret about the facts because many of my friends and colleagues knew of them over a considerable time—it presumably did so because of today's debate. But it did so in a way which suggested that there were all kinds of possible implications which prompted telephone calls suggesting that I had nipped into the council house as a Member of Parliament and had bought the house through some kind of unscrupulous deal. It was then suggested that I had bought it as a Labour member of Bristol City Council, which position I had held. It was then suggested that, having bought it, I voted to stop other people buying their council houses. All of these allegations were downright lies. Rightly or wrongly, Bristol City Council, under both Labour and Conservative control, has sold its council houses since 1960.
When the other local newspaper, the Bristol Evening Post, which treats these matters honestly and objectively, published my reply to the accusations, the attack shifted. It became bizarre if not ludicrous. It was said that "Red Ron" had become a capitalist. It appears that

a reporter, having looked a this desirable property, decided that it was worth at least £8,000. That is the sort of sum that Conservatives might use as a deposit for the luxury London flats which they purchase on a 50-year mortgage.
If the reporter had had all the facts or had checked the agreement he would have seen two names on it—those of myself and my wife. He would have seen that "Red Ron" was a capitalist to the extent of £4,000—but I should be so lucky! It was not as simple as that. If we can keep up the mortgage payments for the next 20 years, I might have a half a roof over my head. That is the extent to which "Red Ron" has become a capitalist.
The council house in which I live has been photographed so many times that I am considering opening it to the public at the weekends. I am thinking of asking some Conservatives to advise me how to go about that. Perhaps they will be able to tell me what to do with the Chippendale chairs, the Picassos and the other objets d'art which adorn my residence. I have decided not to do so, however, because the gardens and the lawns of the council houses were laid by the direct building department of the local authority —probably set out by Mr. Capability Brown and he might be upset to think of so many visitors walking over them.
I have lived in a council house all my married life. I do not suppose that many Conservatives get very close to council houses, and it might do some of them a bit of good if they lived in them, whether buying or renting, and got a bit closer to those who create the real wealth of the country.
Those who live in council houses are on a hiding to nothing: if they pay rent, they are being subsidised, and that is wrong. Some argue by implication that there ought to be a big placard saying "No one on this estate earns more than £25 a week." If council house tenants consider buying, they are told "You had better get out now and go into the private sector."
In Bristol the house-building record is second to none. Those who signed the Early-Day Motion might have done a little bit better for people who want houses if they had tried to get on to the Tory local authorities in the South-West


and began to emulate the achievements of Bristol Council.
In Bristol there are about 1,600 houses under construction, or approved, with more to come in a massive housing drive up to 1980. Bristol has produced a Green Paper on housing which reveals a very important fact and emphasises what the Minister said about having to try to determine this matter locally. It is that more than 80 per cent. of our waiting list of some 4,000 require one-bedroom and two-bedroom units of accommodation. Therefore, it is essential that there should be local determination. This figure highlights that.
I know that many colleagues would disagree and would say that there should be no sales whatsoever of council houses. But under the Bristol scheme anyone buying a council house and wishing to sell it later has to offer it back to the council right through a period of 21 years. That provision ought to be strengthened.
There are three aspects to the problem. First, there is the question of deciding locally in terms of the housing needs in the particular area.
In many parts of the country no council houses at all should be sold, and I do not regard it as hypocrisy on my part to make that comment in relation to the housing needs in particular areas.

Mr. Michael Brotherton (Louth): Will the hon. Member tell the House how he justifies the humbug of his position as deputy chairman of the Tribune Group with buying his own council house? He is a complete, utter and total humbug unless he can justify that.

Mr. Thomas: I have already said that the decision I took five years ago had nothing to do then with being chairman of the Tribune Group. I am making it quite clear to the hon. Gentleman that in the Bristol situation, with the Bristol housing programme, I support the Bristol Labour group's approach to the sale of council houses. I have made it quite clear, and it has nothing to do with being in the Tribune Group or anything else.

Mr. Robert Adley: Hypocrite.

Mr. Thomas: But I should like to see—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did I hear the word"hypocrite"? If so, it must be withdrawn, because it is an unparliamentary expression as applied to an hon. Member. Do we know who said it?

Mr. Adley: I willingly own up to using the expression. If it is unparliamentary, I withdraw it. I wish that I could find another word to replace it. Perhaps you could advise me, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Brotherton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I substitute the word "humbug" for "hypocrite"?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may not, and this is not the sort of tone in which to conduct our affairs.[Interruption.] Order. There may be high feelings, but the hurling of abuse by Members at each other adds nothing at all to the debate. "Humbug" is an unparliamentary expression when applied to an hon. Member.

Mr. Thomas: I repeat that I should like to see the Bristol kind of scheme strengthened, and to see a situation in which, if a tenant buys a council house in which he is living, whenever he leaves that house it goes back into the pool. The council should buy it. The council should be under an obligation to buy it back.
I fully realise that the fundamental and powerful argument, the main argument, against sales of council houses is that they cut down the housing stock. I completely accept that. But I believe that there are ways in which that can be dealt with, as I suggested earlier.
The Conservative Party tries to pretend that it is the friend of council house tenants, and yet it is the party which introduced the pernicious Housing Finance Act. It would like to take all the subsidies off rent and force rents through the roof. It would like to cut back public expenditure and increase unemployment. Its building record is absolutely appalling. It shouts its belief in a property-owning democracy, but what it fears most is democracy-owning property. We shall see this tomorrow when we discuss nationalisation. None of its Early-Day Motions or any other nonsense will stop me from doing what I can in this place to fight for the kind of Socialist Britain that I want to see.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. David Penhaligon: One of the things that first struck me on being elected to Parliament was the overwhelming number of people coming to my surgeries with housing problems. Despite the publication of the waiting list for the new towns, I am afraid that at least in Cornwall there has been very little improvement. The main cause of the growth of the council house waiting list in my area has undoubtedly been the obscene increase in the price of the privately purchased house available to the ordinary people in my locality.
In my constituency—it is typical of many outside the main cities—there is an owner-occupiership of about 60 per cent. I welcome that situation and look forward to an increase in the figure. But I think that the Conservative Party today is rather simplifying the situation in constituencies such as mine—I speak for many rural constituencies in some of the more attractive areas of Britain—by saying dogmatically that it will give the right to any council tenant in any situation to buy the house at a 30 per cent. discount.
The economics of building a house for £15,000 and then selling it for £10,500 are new to me, especially when that comes from those who claim to understand business matters rather better than hon. Members in some other quarters of the House. It just does not make sense to sell a house for £4,500 less than it costs to build it.
In some of the rural beauty spots in Cornwall, or in other parts of the country, near areas with substantial secondary attractions, if the council housing stock is sold, there is just no way in which it can be replaced. It is not fair to argue in that situation that the money produced by these sales could be used to build second houses. I might go with that argument in some instances, but not in the sort of situation that I have been describing. The beauty of such areas can be destroyed by further and further building. If we wish to maintain their attractions, we have to maintain the building level at about what it is now.
In some parts of the country local authorities may well be justified in selling some of their houses, but the decision
must be left in the hands of the authorities concerned. They alone can possibly know their own areas well enough. There can be a great difference even between one village and another as little as six miles away. Only the people of the locality should be allowed to make the decision.
It is interesting that in a county such as Cornwall, where all the councils are under independent control—some of us may reflect on what the word "independent" means, but these councils are certainly not tied by political dogma—every council refuses to sell council houses. It is a reflection of the feeling of the local people, who understand the local situation. Although there are places in which I might criticise them for it, I can well understand the pressures that cause it.
The district council where I live has only 42,000 voters, yet there are 1,450 names or). the council house waiting list. I rather suspect that in percentage terms that beats any of the big cities. I know from talking to right hon. Members and hon. Members in my own party that this situation is only too true in rural areas where the income level is much below the national average. It is often reflected in many of the seats which my party wins at subsequent elections.
I welcome the Government's statement on the sale of council houses. I am still a little confused by the amendment, but if they clearly mean that the sale of council houses will be permitted when the local authority and community want that situation, I welcome it and will encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Government on that matter.
The sale of council houses is an issue which the Conservative Party is trying to use to buy votes in areas where it has virtually no support. This matter is more complicated in many districts than the Opposition would have the House believe. By all means let us sell council houses, but let us also maintain the local prerogative. I do not believe that there is any other logical position.

5.30 p.m.

Sir Thomas Williams: What I have to say I will try to say shortly. Over the last 20 years a good


deal of research has gone into the problems of housing and, particularly and acutely in more recent years, into problems related to council housing.
As long ago as 1962 Baroness Sharp summed up the then position as being one in which private enterprise no longer had any part to play in building for letting and that research into owner-occupation showed that only a relatively small proportion of our people could afford to buy houses. As things stood, said Baroness Sharp at that time, the only real alternative to owner-occupation was municipal housing, and any attempt to reduce the number of municipal houses available would be bound to create greater hardship.
Since that time there have been growing problems related to municipal housing. But I listened in vain to the spokesman for the official Opposition for any evidence that they had taken the slightest interest in the research which had gone on into the real problems of municipal housing. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said that he would put forward the policy of the Conservative Party. The hon. Gentleman put forward not a policy but a shibboleth.
Those of us who represent large conurbations in the North-West know about the real problems of municipal housing. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be ashamed to make the kind of demagogic speech that he made in the light of the vast amount of poverty, suffering and need in that area. Saturday after Saturday, every constituency clinic brings tragic pictures of people who wait on housing lists not for weeks or months, but for years to get houses in which they can live with decency and dignity.
The real problem of the housing programme concerns the cost of building, the cost of repair and maintenance, and problems of an immediacy which make a mockery of the general cry by the Conservative Party that council houses, regardless of the situation, should be made available for sale. Bearing in mind the increased costs of both building and maintenance, if council houses were largely and indiscriminately sold throughout the country, such a policy would in turn bring major problems of a kind which would increase rather than reduce

the tragedy of the lack of housing about which we often hear. If we reduce the pool of council houses, large numbers of people who are still on housing lists will be left with even less possibility of obtaining houses.
It is not true that, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury said, sales of council houses would not increase rents. If those council houses were replaced to maintain the pools in areas such as mine, rents in local authorities where costs are spread among tenants in pre-war, post-war and new houses would be bound to be increased. The cost of replacing council properties sold at discounts of 20 per cent., 30 per cent. and 40 per cent.—indeed, the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) referred to 60 per cent.—would tremendously increase the burden upon local authorities faced with large housing problems.
It would not be right or fair to new owner-occupiers facing increased costs to load them with a substantial burden of maintenance and repair—a problem which is causing tremendous anxiety within local authorities.

Mr. Raison: rose—

Sir T. Williams: I promised to finish within 10 minutes. I am willing to talk to the hon. Gentleman about this matter at any other time, but not now.
I address no longer the Conservative Party, which seems in this context to be doing something purely political and totally irrelevant to the real problems facing us, but the Minister. If it is the Minister's wish, and if it is to be part of Government policy in future, that in certain areas houses owned by municipalities and New Towns should be made available for owner-occupation, I commend to him most strongly the alternative of co-operative forms of housing. The situation would be improved, because it would enable those who become owner-occupiers within co-operative associations to undertake the burdensome cost of repairs and maintenance at levels which would not, for them, become too over-burdensome and perhaps would avoid an increase in the number of ghettos and slums which may result if we put on owner-occupiers burdens that they cannot bear. Little has been done, although Governments of all completions have toyed with the idea, to consider the extent to


which housing associations and cooperative housing can assist in overcoming the real problems for which the cry for the sale of council houses is too facile a proposed solution.
I have given what I know is an inadequate description of the matter that I wanted to make the substance and body of my speech. But, having thrown out the idea, I shall leave it to the Minister and give others an opportunity to speak.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Andrew Welsh (South Angus): I shall try to be brief. I noticed that the official Opposition spokesman did not once mention Scotland. This follows hard on the heels of a debate on local government on an official Opposition Supply Day when, again, they excluded Scotland. It is a callous disregard of Scottish needs.
In looking at house tenure and ownership in Scotland, it is crucial to introduce the maximum possible flexibility of approach to the problem. Such flexibility should always be designed to meet the needs of individuals and families within the total national housing stock. I say "needs" deliberately rather than "circumstances". Ideally, the lowness or poverty of a person's income should not prevent that individual and his or her family from enjoying the benefits of decent housing and a decent environment in which to bring up children. This is especially true in Scotland with its sad history of low wages, urban deprivation and massive housing problems. The elimination of this long-standing combination of poor conditions must be an essential part of Scottish housing policy.
The mechanisms whereby the needs can be matched by existing resources exist in embryo. What is required is a balanced approach to home tenure taking into account changing tastes, desires and rising expectations among the Scottish population.
With the growing individualisation of families and their needs, should come a widening range of choice so that we have straight rentals, rental purchase, outright ownership, half-and-half mortgage schemes and co-operative ownership. The old system of only public renting or private ownership should give way to a multiplicity of forms of tenure designed

to suit individual needs and to allow families more say in deciding their own affairs in their own ways. It is within a more balanced approach to Scottish housing that the debate concerning the sale of council and new town houses should take place.
For historical reasons, Scotland has one of the most lopsided patterns of tenure in Western Europe. The vast bulk of our tenants live in publicly-owned houses. As Scotland moves to self-government, which will break the bonds of our past economic and environmental poverty, so should we be planning for the changing expectations and circumstances of our people.
Publicly-owned housing will rightly maintain an important place in our future housing, but its contribution must be added to a host of other possible forms of tenure which are freely available as an option to the citizens of Scotland to allow the maximum freedom of choice for families. Thus the sale of council houses will take its part in the broader picture which I hope will change the whole basis of Scotland's housing tenure under self-government.
There are strong arguments in favour of selling council housing where appropriate and with adequate safeguards. Such purchases can act as a form of saving and investment for council tenants who otherwise face a lifetime of reluctant rent paying with no end product, apart from current use, in sight.
Private house owners already know these advantages and the benefits which accrue from them. On the psychological level, private ownership is a significant motivating factor for families which should not be overlooked.
Among those who wish to purchase their houses and to improve them by their own efforts, this can be seen in better maintenance and speedier improvements. The end results benefit not only themselves, but the whole community.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: Let us suppose that an area has thousands of people waiting for rented housing because they cannot afford to buy their own homes. Catering for such people was the original purpose of municipal housing. How does the hon. Gentleman think the sale of council houses will help poor


people who are still waiting for rented property?

Mr. Welsh: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Help must be given to those poor people. That was the whole tenor of what I was saying earlier. Selling council houses is only one part of Scottish housing needs. Sales can release a valuable source of revenue for housing authorities which, in turn, can be put to good use elsewhere in the community. These funds can be used to help others.
Those who argue that public assets are being put into private hands should accept that this is being done at a price and realise that this money will be available for recycling for the benefit of the whole community. By creating these new and varied forms of tenure, we are giving people an opportunity and an alternative to the present system. We give ordinary people the chance to break out of the paternalism and dependence of the present system of publicly-owned housing and we give the opportunity of meeting changing needs, wishes and tastes. In addition, we will give much-needed increased mobility in Scotland.
The outlook and aspirations of present-day young couples can be very different from those of their parents and grandparents. A more flexible house tenure and ownership system is needed to match the changing outlook as we move through the last quarter of the twentieth century.
A more balanced approach to house tenure would certainly be a step in the right direction to prevent social segregation. At present, there are exclusive zones of purely public or purely private housing estates—separated by wide gulfs. Any balanced approach would bring about a mix of housing and create a much healthier social situation.
In advocating the sale of council houses and in extending other forms of tenure I realise there must be adequate safeguards to avoid the obvious pitfalls. Each local authority must establish the likely demand for tenant purchase and prepare programmes for the sensible release of properties related to the supply of new homes so that the stock is not allowed to shrink precipitately. I think that covers the point made by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Wilson).
Local authorities should not be left with only the least desirable houses. Any

reduction in the number of homes in public ownership should be designed to keep back a continuing supply of good quality homes for those who prefer this form of tenure. There must also be "buy-back" clauses with suitable time limits.
While we believe in the right of tenants to buy council houses, we firmly believe that the decision should be in the hands of the local authorities involved, since only they know the complete background and important factors in each area. The Government's role should be encouraging rather than dictatorial.
I cannot completely accept either the motion or the amendment. The Opposition are too narrow-minded in their approach, while the Government at least take into account the need to look at the broader aspects of this problem.
I am recommending to my hon. Friends that we support the Government amendment, but I do so only on the understanding that it does not go far or fast enough in the direction of supporting and encouraging local authorities wishing to make available houses for sale to their tenants.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Eric Moonman: It is difficult to follow the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Welsh). His dilemma is primarily of his own making because of the way Supply Days are used.
I know that the Opposition are in some distress and that Supply Days are a terribly important part of the function of an Opposition. We have had some very good debates in the past. However, when one looks at the wording of today's motion, one must wonder whether this is the most serious charge the Opposition can raise against the Government. It is a reflection of the extraordinary schizophrenic state of the outlook and structure of the Conservative Party. It has seen better days and will no doubt see better days in future. In the meantime, we see no improvement in the quality of Supply Days or the contributions from the Opposition Front Bench.
One understands that within a political atmosphere such as we have in the House there will be some criticisms of Government policy, but when we are talking about New Towns, the Opposition spokesmen should remember that some


of us know about New Towns and what goes on there. It should not be claimed that the results in recent local elections were caused by the fact that the Conservative Party fought on a policy of allowing tenants to buy their own homes. There were reasons quite unrelated to that fact for those results.
If the Oposition really want a bit of political fun, let us put the record straight. Let us remind them that their record on home ownership is pretty spotty. They opposed the Labour Government's leasehold reform legislation of 1967 which would have enabled occupiers of leasehold property to buy their own homes. Let us remind them that under the last Conservative Government house prices soared. The average price of a new house in Great Britain in 1970 was £4,975. By early 1974, it was £10,871. That was a good increase by any Tory standards. It was an increase of 118 per cent.
Let us remind ourselves that under the Tory Government mortgage interest rates increased from 8 per cent. to 11 per cent. in less than 18 months. Let us remind the Opposition that the Tory Government created a mortgage famine and new houses lay empty for months because people could not afford to buy them. For the Tories to talk in a specific way about the right to buy one's own houses is quite revealing. It underlines everything that we have felt—namely, that it is not need that has been the basis of their housing policy but ability to pay. That is what the whole argument is about.
We should put on record a matter that my right hon. Friend was not able to argue in detail in the short time available to him at the beginning of the debate. Let us point out that the Labour Government have done more to encourage home ownership than the Tories. I am not at all defensive on this matter. The rate of increase in house prices in the United Kingdom has been reduced in the past two years to a little over 10 per cent. In the same period owner-occupation has risen to just over 53 per cent. The Labour Government have ended the mortgage famine—which the Tories created—by producing £500 million for the building societies. That is the sort of thing that has to be stated if we are to indulge in Supply Day fun and games.
It must be stated that many of the problems that we now face in the housing sector go back to the extraordinary and inglorious 13 years of Tory rule. There has been considerable reference to New Towns. They have many features that are worthy of consideration. If some of us feel some concern about the way in which they have developed, it is not merely because of the right of those who live in them to own their own house.
It would be wrong in any debate in this House to take up any one narrow sector of new town life, but let us bear in mind the way in which new town folk elect their representatives and take decisions for themselves. That is why an important decision was made by the Government enshrining a promise to ensure that there would be a transfer of assets from the development corporations to the local authority. That is the basis of a Bill that is now passing through the House.
This is not an academic consideration. It is a matter that happens to have great relevance in all the new towns. It means not merely a transfer of assets from one authority to another, but the relating of decision-making to one authority. That is an important step. We shall thus avoid duplication and reduce, to some extent, the bureaucracy which inevitably arises with an agency such as a development corporation, however good it is.
The Bill also means that those who live in the New Towns will have the same rights as those who live in any other part of the country. Those who live in London and Manchester, for example, know what they want to do when they vote in a certain way at elections. Those who live in the New Towns have not had that right. The Bill that is now proceeding through Parliament will ensure that they have the same rights.
We have not said very much so far about the extent and scale of the New Towns. There are 2¼ million people living in the 33 new towns. There are many arguments that one could make about the way in which the New Towns have developed, but they are important features of our society. The New Towns owe their way of life to the way in which Labour took a decision many years ago to encourage them. Britain's New


Town development has been a source of great interest throughout the world.
I have one quotation about the life that exists in a New Town. It is regrettable that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), implied that there was something lacking in New Towns. It was pointed out by Taylor and Chave in an important study on the environment in New Towns that
by conventional standards a new town is a good society. It is happy and healthy. Its families have good homes. Its children have good schools. Work is varied and close at hand. Working conditions are good. There are wide facilities for active recreation. The strains of industrial life are reduced to a degree not achieved in unplanned communities.
In all the studies that have taken place so far, no real reference has been made to whether people can buy their own houses. That is an important particular. My right hon. Friend has said that if people want that choice they should have the right to choose. But what is significant is that there is no breakdown in the New Towns because of anything that this Government or any other have done.
The reference to New Towns in the motion does not take into account the circumstances in the old communities. It must have escaped the attention of the Tories that such a position can be adopted only if one is convinced that waiting lists in the New Towns will be reduced and that some of the housing problems in the old cities will be solved. How can an isolated decision be taken about the New Towns and the way in which they sell their housing stock when we have not solved the problems in the inner city areas?
For example, let us consider the position in my old borough of Tower Hamlets. One finds, despite all the efforts that have been made, that the rate of rehabilitation of the authority's stock in the past seven or eight years has averaged only o2 per cent. of a housing stock of which 25 per cent. was in poor or unfit condition. An enormous problem has been left behind in the old city areas. The concept of a New Town is not merely to create attractive areas 30 miles or 40 miles away from the conurbations. It was intended that at the right moment we should refurbish the old cities. If

that is not done, we shall be making the great mistake of creating New Towns which ultimately will have the same sore look as the old cities.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury, or one of his hon. Friends, should give a moment to answer the questions that are in the minds of many of my colleagues. When the Tories talk about the sale of council houses it is difficult to find out what they really mean. Many of my colleagues have raised this point throughout the debate. Would the Tories force local authorities to sell? Would they take away from local authorities the responsibility and the right to devise policies in the light of the needs of their locality? Are they saying that there must be a blanket approach? If they advocate a blanket approach, that is a complete departure from something that they have believed in in the past—namely, that a local authority should take its decisions for itself.
Those are questions that have some relevance if the Tories are at all serious about the proper use of their Supply Days. If they are not serious, they should learn a little more about the way in which Supply Days were used in the past.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The speech of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Welsh) is a good example to us all of how to make a speech on a controversial issue without offending anyone. I hope that his tactic of arguing for the motion as a justification for voting for the Government will not deter the Minister from referring to certain matters in his reply.
In Scotland things are quite different. The Minister has referred to the level of owner-occupation in Scotland and Wales being 53 per cent. He said that he hoped to improve upon that. He will know that in Scotland the level of owner-occupation is only 30 per cent. If action is called for in England and Wales, a lot more is called for in Scotland.
The housing situation in our cities is also different. There are substantial waiting lists in some areas and desperate housing shortages, but there are many towns in Scotland where the waiting lists are occupied by as many as 25,000 to 30,000 people. Many post-war houses


are empty and they are not able to be left. The problem is one of environment, not so much the sheer provision of housing.
As I have said, things are different. That is why it must be said that it would be wrong to think, as some do, that the life of a council tenant in Scotland is a happy, subsidised life of bliss. It is because things are so different and difficult in Scotland that an increasing number of people want to change the situation so that they may be able to buy their own homes.
Any suggestion that sales should be related in any way to pooled historic costs is dangerous. There is no doubt, as I think the Minister will accept as both he and I represent substantial housing schemes, that if we are to base sales on pooled historic costs, the situation will have no relation to reality. The kind of houses that are popular and in demand are those built between the wars at prices of between £300 and £400. Those not in demand are those being built at prices of £16,000 to £20,000 in our few housing areas outside cities.
The one thing that worries me about sales of council houses and the one thing that we cannot ignore is that with the possibility of going ahead with such plans we might create great ghettos in our city areas, because the demand for the sale of houses will be in the settled outer areas and there will not be such a great demand elsewhere. By pursuing a policy of trying to free them and give people more opportunity and the right to own their own homes, we shall create ghettos in some areas, such as those peopled by problem families, the unemployed, the sick and the disabled.
In some degree this could be made worse by what is again a well motivated scheme—namely, the rent rebate scheme. Ever since we introduced the rent rebate scheme, a substantial number of tenants have been paying little or no rent. As well as providing a great deal of help, this scheme has caused great resentment on the part of people working for a wage and paying full rent when they see those with the same facilities paying little or no rent at all. If we go on as we are without trying to make any provision to create a social mix in some of our large council areas, we are in

danger, for the best of reasons and with the best of intentions of making things worse.
That is why I hope that in their policies the Government will make it clear that pooled historic costs will have no part to play in the assessment of the price to be paid for a council house. Obviously, a house might have been built at a cost of £400 between the wars and be worth as much as £1,600 but in the Glasgow or Deeside perimeter areas the cost of a new house might be as much as £14,000 to £15,000 and the market value as little as £3,000. I believe that if sales take place they should be made throughout the council areas so that we can create a social mix. If there is to be a weighting on price ing, the weighting should be to offer houses at cheaper prices where there is a danger of creating a ghetto.
It seems that in Scotland the situation is totally different from that in England and Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said that in England and Wales there was a ban on sales of New Town houses. In 1975 only 24 council houses were sold in Scotland and 247 New Town houses. However, the real pattern that emerges is that whereas under the Conservative Government between 1971 and 1973 the number of public authority houses sold rose from 259 to 2,200—a pretty small figure—in two years flat the present Government have succeeded in bringing down the figure again to about 250.
I should like the Government to make an announcement about what their new policy on the sales of public authority houses in Scotland will be. Are the Government to provide more freedom, particularly bearing in mind the special problems that we have with a lower rate of owner-occupation? Have they any plans to deal with the multitude of Socialist-controlled authorities in Scotland which are simply not prepared to sell any public authority houses, irrespective of the guidance of Government, the views of planners and so on?
The Minister will be aware of the present troubles of the city Labour Party in the Glasgow district. Some members are saying "Things are ridiculous; we must offer some houses for sale, otherwise we shall have a situation of hardly any owner-occupation being available in Glasgow", and, on the other hand, some members are saying" We must not do this


because it is not Socialism".In Scotland, having such a low rate of owner-occupation, there is a case for the Government to give directions to local authorities on what should be done in particular circumstances.
I support the sale of council houses and public authority houses, for reasons that I have mentioned. In these days of high rents, coming under Tory and Labour Governments, it is obviously a mug's game to pay an ever-increasing rent but ultimately to have nothing to show for it.
We need more mobility in Scotland, where we have a very serious unemployment problem and declining industries. It is almost impossible in the West of Scotland to get a transfer from one council house to another if one's job has gone elsewhere.
The rate of owner-occupation in Scotland is about the lowest in Europe. It is only about 30 per cent. We desperately need the sale of council houses also for social mobility. The creation of municipal ghettos is not merely a housing problem. It is also an educational problem.

Mr. John Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman say how he can solve the basic problem of someone employed on manual work getting a loan from a building society in order to purchase a house, bearing in mind that the price of housing in Scotland now is astronomical and even higher than that in some London areas?

Mr. Taylor: It was precisely for that reason that I was suggesting that we should have a clear indication of market values, fairly fixed. The market value of some council houses would be extremely low based on the kind of prices for houses that are obtained in the West of Scotland. However, I believe that every council tenant should receive a statutory notice from his local authority saying what the monthly repayment would be if he were to buy his house.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I have placed on the Order Paper a few modest words as an amendment to the Government's amendment, because in my view the Labour Party and particularly the present Labour Government have been slow to hit back in the propaganda battle in which it has been said that we are the party opposed to owner-occupation. I was gratified to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister refuting the charges made against the Labour Government and pointing out that it has been Labour Governments who have brought forward the mortgage option scheme, who have stabilised building society funds and who brought about the Leasehold Reform Act. How can a party which brings forward that sort of measure be accused of being anti-owner-occupation?
The same goes for Labour-controlled local authorities, such as that of Birmingham. My remarks apply only to Birmingham. I know nothing about New Towns, and still less about Scotland. However, Birmingham, as a Labour-controlled authority until a couple of weeks ago, wished to have the maximum number of different types of tenure available to the citizens of that city. In 1972 it proposed the half-and-half mortgage scheme. That scheme is now followed by many towns throughout the country.
Birmingham further proposed the purchase and improvement mortgage scheme for selling what were council-owned properties built before 1919, along with an improvement grant as part of the mortgage. Both those schemes were held back by a Conservative Government, the so-called flag-wavers for owner-occupation. Both those schemes from a Labour-controlled authority would have led to more owner-occupation but were held back by a Tory Government. It does not make sense, therefore, for the Labour Party to hold back, nationally and locally, from defending itself against the propaganda put forward by the Opposition in this Chamber, as well as outside in the council chambers throughout the country.
I do not wish to be dogmatic. We have heard from the Front Bench and it is implied by the Government's amendment that the Government support the status quo. So from Westminster we are

not going to stop, ban or centrally restrict local authorities, whether Tory or Labour, disposing of properties within their control.
I wish, however, to deal with that part of the Government's amendment which refers to public sector sales being:
decided locality by locality in the light of serious and unbiased consideration of the housing needs of the area concerned".
I take this in its broadest possible sense. I look upon housing needs as being also the needs of existing tenants, and looking at this from the point of view of my constituency one of these needs is the need for adequate and speedy housing repair and maintenance. At the present, however, because of the overloading of our direct labour department and the overloading, believe it or not, of private enterprise contractors, we have a planned maintenance scheme for housing repairs. The result is that in response to my inquiries on behalf of constituents I receive letters saying" Our workmen will be around that particular area in 1978"—or it may be 1979 or even 1980—and I have to send such letters to my constituents. 
Obviously, urgent repairs will be tackled under the maintenance scheme, but what a tenant may consider urgent and what a local authority housing department inspector may consider urgent is an extremely subjective area. There is, therefore, considerable room for dispute. I am never sure about how London organises itself, but Birmingham is probably the largest single housing authority in the country. Certainly, in Birmingham we have the bureaucracy to go with it.
Many of my constituents who work for the housing department, as painters, decorators and builders, complain bitterly about the numbers of inspectors who are employed supposedly to go round checking their work. At the same time I have tenants who complain to me that, when the corporation has used private enterprise contractors, no inspectors come in to check the quality of their work before it is paid for, and when subsequently defects are found in the work no real recompense is available because the firm has disappeared, gone bankrupt or has no money available.
It is well known, as has been stated. that in the period from 1966 to 1972


when Birmingham was Conservative-controlled it pioneered the sale of council houses under Sir Francis Griffin. I do not know the full statistics, but I know from personal experience that a great majority of the people who purchased during those six years are still living in those houses today. That is irrefutable and is something no one can deny or would wish to deny. Those people purchased their houses because they had every intention of remaining in them. There is no beating about the bush on that. That is why they are still there.
Those houses, therefore, would never have gone back to the housing stock or pool for reletting in any event. Consequently I do not subscribe to the argument that we must fix the housing stock and then heaven forbid our altering that particular figure, because the term "housing stock" means different things. It is not the total housing stock but the stock of houses available to let which is arguable. The nub of the argument in the Birmingham situation is what is to happen in the city in the next two years while the Conservatives are in control. We have a housing waiting list of 30,000. It is admitted by both the outgoing Labour administration and the incoming Conservative administration that there is in reality a live list of only 15,000, as I see another Birmingham Member agrees.
For the second time in 10 years, therefore, the Labour authority in Birmingham has bequeathed to an incoming Tory administration a massive house-building programme with the land, the contracts and everything geared up. There is a commitment to build 5,000 homes a year for the next four years, or 20,000 homes in all in that period. If the live housing application list stands as it does currently at only 15,000—one presumes that the expensively employed housing officials have done their sums, and we have to take their word that the total is only 15,000—clearly, if the programme bequeathed by the Labour authority to the Conservative administration is carried out, we should be in a state of housing equilibrium in Birmingham at the end of a four-year period, with no great waiting list in terms of need or homelessness.
On that basis, given the rule that where a council property is resold within five years it must go back to the council—I do not understand the reference to a 21-

year-old period in Bristol when it is five years in Birmingham—provided that the plans of both parties were carried out, the housing problem in Birmingham could be solved acceptably to the benefit of those wishing to buy and those wishing to continue renting, because, whatever hon. Members opposite may say, in the six years of Tory administration in Birmingham, of something like 150,000 dwellings, at a time when anyone could apply to buy, only 10,000 were sold. When that administration went out there were 4,000 in the pipeline; but the sale of 10 per cent. of the total housing stock over six years is not very great. It does not lead us to believe that the great mass of 5 million council tenants—

Mr. Reginald Eyre: rose

Mr. Rooker: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. If I did, I would only prevent someone else being called to speak, and the winding-up speeches will begin at about 6·30.
We appear to hang ourselves on a dogmatic situation where we do not seem to take account of the reality of a particular locality. That is why I support the Government's amendment and what my right hon. Friend has said, since he has implied regard for the needs of locality. But if the promises and plans laid down by Labour-controlled local authorities are then completely cast aside by the Tories when they come in and they proceed with a policy of diminishing the housing stock, we shall reach a situation when the queue of those who are waiting and those who are now homeless will continue to grow, as obviously it did in the New Towns. Therefore, if such planned policies are actively carried out I for one would not hang myself on the hook of opposition to sales, as many others have sought to do. I would follow my hon. Friends into the Lobby in support of the Government.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. William van Straubenzee: I believe it will be generally agreed that this has been a fascinating debate in a number of ways, because clearly there has been a rethinking of the whole question of selling New Town and council housing. The ably-expressed speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) to which


we have just listened was an example of that. It has been an interesting debate because we have had total self-destruction by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas). I do not think I have ever heard of a man pouring a can of parliamentary petrol over himself so effectively and then personally setting light to it. That is his business, however, and I have no doubt that the fires of wrath will descend on and about him.
The most interesting speech was that of the Minister for Planning and Local Government. For connoisseurs of ministerial speeches, it was of very great interest. First, the right hon. Gentleman is well known and appreciated in the House as a very great parliamentary performer. Except on very detailed matters, he rarely follows his notes. But I was watching him with great care, and I saw that on this occasion he read every single word of his speech. That showed quite clearly that it was a very skilfully and carefully drafted speech.

Mr. John Silkin: I am grateful to my old friend, colleague, enemy and adversary. The reason why I read my speech was that I realised that we had a short debate and that I had to get it out in 10 minutes flat.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The right hon. Gentleman is admirable at thinking up quick excuses. It was always one of his skills when he was chairman of the Young Socialists in Westminster. However, the real reason was clearly not that.
I can almost visualise the Home Affairs Committee of the Cabinet Office preparing for this debate. The discussion probably went broadly like this: "The Minister would like to be able to move considerably in the direction of indicating the Government's interest in the sale of council and New Town houses. He would propose to speak broadly in this sense. "Then others with different views advocated caution. The result is that we have been granted today the trailer for a change of policy but that it has been thought that politically it cannot be done all in one fell swoop.
What has finally brought this situation about is that from up and down the country it has been understood by all that the last time the people had the opportunity to express themselves at the ballot box they did so decisively. If I may

quote from my own New Town, to which I shall return in the few moments that I shall devote to New Town problems, the Labour Party was in firm control of the district council for Bracknell. It is now reduced to a total representation of three. There has been a quite dramatic change, and since that time there has been a steady stream of inquiries—my own office in the constituency is probably the best focal point—asking when the change of policy which so attracted the voters will be put into practice.
There are few New Towns where there is greater resentment at the Minister's decision in September 1974—the famous Circular 371—which said that there must be no further sales of New Town houses. I wonder whether hon. Members who do not represent New Towns—these new and very interesting social developments —understand the change which has come about in the social outlook of so many people, especially young people, who have moved into them. The shibboleths of former days are no longer appropriate. People look for something new and something different.
I reject totally the argument we heard from the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Sir T. Williams). He argued that the waiting time for new houses in New Towns had been cut overwhelmingly because of the decision to suspend the sale of houses. That does not accord with the facts in the town of Bracknell, which I know. The reason for the fall there is the downturn in the general economic climate and, therefore, the greater difficulty in attracting employment both of a manual nature and of an office nature to the New Towns. If a New Town is designed as a London overspill New Town and not merely to act as an out-county housing estate, it is necessary to attract to the town people's employment as well as their homes. What really matters is the general economic state of the nation and not whether houses can be sold.
I was delighted to hear the Minister say that he intended to consult the corporations and to inquire whether in their circumstances it would be wise for them to restart selling houses. In that connection, I want to look closely, but not tonight — I make only a glancing reference tonight — at the composition of the New Town corporations. In my own case,


there are nine members on the board of the Bracknell Corporation, four of them appointed from members of the district council. All four district council representatives were Socialists. There was no Tory representative. Three of the four have lost their seats. There is now only one who is still a member both of the district council and of the development corporation.
On other appropriate occasions—although it is relevant to this debate if there are to be discussions with the Minister—I want to be sure that the representation from the district councils represents more closely the areas from which these councillors come. The Minister is being very foolish only to appoint members of his own party in this respect because, with the swings of the electoral pendulum, those people demonstrably are no longer representative and ordinary justice requires that they, too, should change.
I happen to believe that good estate management requires that men and women, some drawn locally, should take long-term decisions and have a reasonable period of appointment regardless of party. But the corollary is that there must be fairness and justice as between one party and another.
I come next to a matter about which I know that I am slightly out of step with the majority view in my own party, though, of course, I go along with the corporate overall view. It has been said already that, under a Bill at present before the House, the assets of the New Towns, including the housing stock, will pass to the district councils. When my party comes into office, assuming that the Bill is then law, I believe that it may wish to look very closely at that. It is not true to say, as the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) suggested, that in that respect the New Towns will only be on all fours with their sister towns up and down the country. There is no sister town where the entire rented housing stock vests in a monopoly situation in the elected district council.
Of course, I want to see fully-developed local government services. But my principal fear is that, in the transfer of housing stock from development corporation to district council, we shall see the buildup of a new bureaucracy at district coun-

cil level which is not accompanied by the disbandment of the existing bureaucracy of the successors of the development corporation. It is my great fear that we may build a duplication of bureaucracy and not see the elimination of one of them as a result of the assumption of power by another

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: All that we are hearing from the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) is a load of codswallop. We in the Labour Party believe that council houses should be sold where there is a surplus of council houses. But, inevitably, council houses are built for those who need them. The hon. Gentleman is wrong, and I regret that he is taking this line.

Mr. van Straubenzee: It appears that I was unwise to give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has not been present during the greater part of the debate. Indeed, I do not think that he was here at the beginning of my speech. Clearly he has not grasped the fact that I am discussing New Towns. However, I shall be glad to assist his education in some more convivial atmosphere.
As I was saying, I have that reservation and I have voiced it. I recognise, however, that the agreement in principle to the Bill of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have these difficult decisions to make and who handle our affairs so ably is accompanied by a firm belief that it should be linked with a right of purchase of a house by a New Town tenant. That I understand and welcome. I can tell them that in Bracknell—and in this I believe that I can speak for the overwhelming mass of those in the town—the people do not want their town to become a council house town. They believe in ownership and relish the independence which ownership gives. They welcome the pledge given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and they will look upon this debate as giving a further example of their aspirations being met by the Tory Party.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann (Mitcham and Morden): I am grateful to the two Front Benches for allowing me a few minutes to speak.
I was disturbed to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister talk as though there


were some definite gain to public funds, under any circumstances, from the sale of council houses. I can assure him it is not the case. Although it is true that the subsidy to owner-occupiers, in the first years of mortgage on a new house, is initially lower than that of the subsidy on a new council house, I remind him that the subsidy to the council tenant diminishes steadily over the years and we are making a profit on pre-1960 houses whereas the subsidy to owner-occupiers continues indefinitely. My own house, built in 1850, still a public subsidy on it.
I would also remind the House that the supply of mortgage funds, the capital for investment, is not unlimited and that when we draw more of it into the owner-occupied sector there is less available for investment in other sectors. I would also point out that the sale of public assets at less than their value is bound to be popular to the recipients, but it is not a policy which I would wish to see pursued by the Government. I accept that there is a right for local democracy to carry out its wishes, provided it is not giving away a public asset on which the homeless must rely if they are to have any chance of being rehoused. This should also be vehemently discouraged by the Government.
There are 167,000 relettings a year, which is approximately three-fifths of all new tenancies allocated by local authorities. If we sell these houses, there will be no chance of the vast number of people on waiting lists who need houses being housed in the future.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: In his opening remarks my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), in an admirable speech, said that this was a remarkable debate and that the most remarkable thing was the manner in which the Minister addressed the House. That was not the way in which I found it remarkable. What I found remarkable was that gone was the right hon. Gentleman's suave, almost avuncular, manner in which he used to lecture us on the niceties of the Community Land Act. However, the Community Land Act was something in which he believed utterly and completely. He could be absolutely relaxed when explaining to us lesser mortals the intricacies of that measure.
Today, however, the right hon. Gentleman spoke in a passionate, aggressive manner, the colour rosy in his cheeks, his chin jutting out. One got the feeling that he was seeking to defend the indefensible and to persuade himself, as well as us, that he believed all that he was saying. The right hon. Gentleman was trying to reconcile, in his own mind, two mutually incompatible thoughts—one the belief, which he holds passionately, in social ownership, and the other the right of individuals to own their own parcel of land and the house which is built on it.
In a way, the right hon. Gentleman's speech was similar to one we would expect from the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), if he came down to persuade the House that he was more royalist than the king. The right hon. Gentleman was trying to persuade us that he was the great champion of home ownership, and always had been, yet he is the Minister who brought in the most Socialist measures which the present Government have ever introduced. He sought to divert attention by raking over old battles—the old "anything you can do, I can do better "syndrome, which we hear so often from the Labour Party and which did not advance his argument one jot or tittle.
But let us look at the record in respect of the sale of council houses. The Minister knows that this has always been the policy of this side of the House and that it was a Conservative Administration who introduced the policy and gave encouragement through a series of circulars. He knows that it was the last Labour Government, by their circular of 1968, who put a complete damper upon the sale of council houses by restricting the sales to ¼ per cent. of the stock. That dealt a death blow to many local authorities which were beginning to sell on a large scale—the Greater London Council, for example. Not content with doing that, the present Administration, with their Circular 70/74, said that it was generally undesirable for local authorities to sell. On top of that, there has been a complete ban on the sale of New Town houses.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will rethink that policy and that he will have consultations to see whether it is right, in some circumstances, to sell.
We are grateful for small mercies. He has emphasised that, above everything else, he wants to leave the matter to local decision. Of course, there is the rub: he knows that so far as local decision is concerned, if the decision is in the hands of Labour-controlled councils tenants will have precious little chance of buying their own houses. He does not mean that an authority will look at the matter and decide according to needs. What he means is that the authority will decide, if Labour-controlled, according to its bias and prejudice, not to enable council tenants to buy on any appreciable scale, because this is the history and the record of Labour-controlled councils.
In 1973, when the Labour Party swept into power in a number of local authorities, it stopped the sale of council houses. In 1972, under a Conservative Administration, over 45,000 council houses were sold. In 1973, the year in which local elections took place, the figure dropped to 34,000 houses. However, in 1974, when the full affects of Labour policies were felt, there was a drop to 4,153 sales, and in 1975 a drop to 2,000.
If the right hon. Gentleman really will leave this matter to local authorities, that will ensure that hundreds of thousands of council tenants, in those 90 authorities newly under Conservative control, will be given the opportunity to buy their houses. We wish those district councils god-speed in the pursuance of those polices.
The right hon. Gentleman criticised our concept of giving a man the right to buy the freehold in order to create mobility. He knows as well as every other hon. Member that, once a tenant is placed in a council house, invariably he remains there until he dies or his widow succeeds him. The turnover by way of voluntary movement out of council properties is very small indeed, because the council tenant, once in a council property on a highly subsidised rent, is of course economically trapped.
We say—this is very much the basis of our thinking on this matter—that the council tenant should be given the right to buy his own home. Then, towards the end of his days, he will have something to show for the rent that he has been putting into the local authority. If he wants to retire, to move out of
inner city area to something more pleasant and rural in which to end his days with his wife, he will have an asset that he can dispose of which will enable him to do just that, instead of remaining in the inner city area. That property, which would otherwise remain in his hands and those of his widow, will be released and made available to young families wanting to move into the inner city area because of the job opportunities that it offers. That is the kind of freedom that we should like to give council tenants.
The Minister also asked how we dared talk in these terms when we were so much opposed to leasehold reform. We were not all opposed to leasehold reform. [Interruption.] I entered this House and did all I could to promote leasehold reform. The Minister for Housing and Construction, who is now sniggering at me, will recall how embarrassed he was when, during the debates on the Housing Act 1974, I introduced an amendment extending the right of leasehold enfranchisement to people in the inner London area whose homes had a rateable value of £1,500 or more. I adhere to that because I believe that monopoly ownership of other people's homes is wrong, whether it be in the hands of a private individual or even in those of the State. The way in which I see this right for council tenants is very much a form—an analogy perhaps—of leasehold enfranchisement.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said that when he was Minister he had great difficulties in promoting the sale of council houses because of a variety of obstacles raised by local authorities and also because of the procedures concerned. Extending this analogy of leasehold reform, I would see our policy, when we introduce it, operating in the following way.
A council tenant who had lived in his house for, say, three years—to that extent, we should be advantaging him over the leaseholder, who has to reside in his home for five years—would then, like the leaseholder, have the right to serve a statutory notice upon the local authority, demanding the transfer of the freehold of that house or flat to him. The effect would be to give an immediate right, actionable in the courts of law, as in the


private sector in leasehold reform, to that council tenant. The transfer of the legal right would then be a matter of certification and lodgment in the Land Registry, without any difficulty whatsoever. The machinery can be made to overcome the obstacles which I know taxed my right hon. Friend so hard when he sought energetically to pursue policies of this kind.
My right hon. Friend also mentioned the question of price and urged us to he as generous as we possibly could. He referred to the proposals expounded by our right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), who suggests that we should give the houses away. I can understand that argument, because in many areas the rents being obtained by local authorities scarcely cover the costs of maintenance and management. There is a tremendous loss and burden to the taxpayer and the ratepayer. When those circumstances prevail, giving the houses away would be far cheaper than anything else. I can therefore understand that point of view.
That argument, however, is perhaps more valid in considering the level of rents, as the Government are doing at the moment in their housing finance review. When they have completed that review, that argument may not be quite as valid as it is today. In any case, if we were to give away council houses there would be tremendous resentment throughout the country among people who are struggling to buy their own homes on mortgages, because they would be seeing a dissipation of assets which they had created through payment of their rates and taxes. I do not think that that is something that one would wish to do or to see done.
But there is a case, when a tenant has resided in a council house for a number of years, for being more generous even than the 30 per cent. discount which my right hon. Friend posited—because, in terms, it would be older stock and the cost to the authority would be that much less.
What we would seek to do—again drawing on the analogy of leasehold reform—is to equate the situation with that of the sitting tenant in the private rented sector. A landlord selling to his sitting tenant sells at the market price subject to a substantial discount, depend-

ing on the age of the house and the length of time that the tenant has been there. That is a concept that we can bring into this sector for the benefit of the tenant.
My allotted time has almost run out simply in dealing with the important matters that my right hon. Friend put to me. I would ask other hon. Members to forgive me if I do not have time to answer the points they have put.
We on this side are firm in our policy on the sale of council houses to council tenants. This is something that I believe the people want. Over 80 per cent. of the people in this country wish to be home owners. It makes economic sense along the lines that we discussed a few minutes ago, and—this is something which should attract the Labour Party—it is one of the greatest measures that one could devise for the redistribution of wealth.

6.47 p.m.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): Let me start by stating the Government's position on this matter as clearly as I possibly can before I discuss various aspects of it. We refute the view that local authorities should sell their houses indiscriminately regardless of the local housing situation. The first duty of a local authority is to ensure an adequate supply of rented dwellings. In areas where there are substantial needs to be met for rented dwellings, as in the large cities, we consider that it is generally wrong for local authorities to sell council houses.
There may be areas where the sale of council houses into owner-occupation is appropriate in order to provide a better housing balance, but that should not be done so as to reduce the provision of rented accommodation where there is an unmet demand. Indeed, there are many areas where there is an inadequate supply of rented accommodation relative to the supply of owner-occupied houses.
There may be circumstances in which, in addition to municipal rented dwellings, local authorities should sponsor tenants' co-operatives as well as housing associations. We consider that local authorities should build directly for owner-occupation where they can usefully contribute to meeting a demand for houses for sale. Similarly, local authorities should consider building for long lease for housing cooperatives. Such activities should not,


however, prejudice local authorities in their primary duty to provide rented accommodation.
I should be interested to know whether there is any Opposition Member who will stand up and deny the basic policy which I have just stated on behalf of the Government.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Eyre: I should like to put it to the Minister that his explanation is insensitive. We know that on great estates, in massive areas like Birmingham, tenants will occupy their houses for all the years ahead. Those houses will not become generally available. Yet there is a great desire among those people to exercise ownership and to develop family assets. I ask the Minister not to prevent it.

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman reached the end of that speech after much effort. He has not denied the basic proposition that not only is it the position of the Government now but it was our position when we came into office. I have virtualy quoted directly and explicitly from the policy circular we issued one month after we came to office in March 1974. That remains the policy of the Government. I am almost tempted to leave it at that, but I am sure that the House would like me to educate the Opposition Front Bench a little further.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans): rose—

Mr. Freeson: I cannot give way, because I have only a short time in which to make a number of points and I intend to deal with the matters that are of more interest to those who attended the debate than to those who have just come into the Chamber.
The circular from which I have quoted like other policies issued since, was concerned with a range of housing needs. It was concerned, first, with giving the highest priority to providing more new and modernised housing for all kinds of tenures, which was not mentioned by either of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from the Opposition Front Bench. They made no mention of the need for local authorities to provide more housing, irrespective of arguments about the nature of tenures.
Secondly, our policy is to expand the scope for owner-occupation for those for whom it is the most suitable form of tenure. Thirdly, it is to diversify social ownership and tenure. Fourthly, it is to maintain the first duty of local authorities to ensure an adequate supply of rented accommodation, and to oppose the indiscriminate sale of rented houses regardless of local need. Fifthly, it involves the need to develop housing strategies based upon objective studies of the physical, tenure and economic conditions of the local authorities concerned. Where, by objective standards, there is a need to build, buy and modernise more dwellings for rent, for owner-occupation and for other forms of tenure within existing estates, there is a general duty on local authorities to act under the 1957 and 1969 Housing Acts. Only where disposal of council dwellings or buildings for sale is sensible in the light of that overall duty is it right to carry out such sales.
Unlike the Opposition, we give top priority to providing new and improved housing. Public expenditure on housing is running at over 20 per cent. in real terms above that prevailing in the last year of the Tory Government. Starts and completions have been about 50 per cent. higher. There has been a massive expansion in housing association activity, which has nearly quadrupled in two years. We have sponsored co-operatives all over the country and there have been many inquiries about how we may sponsor and expand this activity.
The rate of public sector new building is crucial and will remain so for a long time. That is why we give it such a high priority. As a result of our policies for the benefit of home owners, we now see a return of confidence which is reflected in improved private house-building figures. Starts last year were 40 per cent. up on 1974. That is continuing this year.
Owner-occupation is the right form of tenure for many people. On present policies I would expect the figure for England and Wales to rise from 55 per cent. to over 60 per cent. by 1980. But it is not necessarily the best or most suitable tenure for everyone. There will remain a widespread desire and need for publicly-rented housing.
In some quarters it has become fashionable to decry council housing. I


refer not to criticism of problems—such as managerial, financial and architectural—which have arisen, but to the constant denigration, distortion and ignorance put about by the Opposition and by some people in the media. Notwithstanding the problems which have arisen, this country has a proud record in public sector housing. It is housing, for the most part, which would not otherwise have been provided. It is housing with a social conscience, housing which has the important quality of improving living standards for millions of people and which, overall, is counter-inflationary in its cost effects. It is a policy which has sustained the rented sector and avoided the decline which would otherwise have taken place throughout the country.
After half a century of public authority housing, it would be surprising if we did not expect to make changes in the way in which we develop policies of social ownership. That is why we, and not the Opposition, have pushed ahead with housing co-operatives, tenant participation, shared equity schemes and improved housing management. Each of those issues was set aside by the previous Conservative Government. The Birmingham scheme for shared equity and various forms of providing owner-occupation was geld up for two years until we came into office.
There are those who do not wish or cannot afford to become owner-occupiers but who wish to have an equity stake in their home or a say in its management. It is for those people that we wish to pursue other kinds of alternatives to conventional rented accommodation or

owner-occupation. That is not a second best to owner-occupation, but it could in many circumstances be an advance in housing policy and community involvement. We wish to see a growing involvement by tenants. We are applying these policies. The previous Government did nothing, but we have been active. Ever since we came to office we have wished to pursue this further, and we are now involved in studies which will lead to Government action. We have put a lot of effort into this policy by day-to-day contact, study groups, seminars and policy circulars. [An HON. MEMBER: "Action, not words."] The action is in the building of houses and the making of better conditions for people to live in. Local authorities must set any policy they have for selling off the stock of council houses against the needs and demands for rented accommodation. They should not sell if there is clear evidence that by selling off the stock they put at risk people who would otherwise have the opportunity of relets of vacated properties. That is the type of examination which local authorities should make. We are attempting in our policy to go across the board and to look at public enterprise in rented accommodation, co-operatives, shared equity and owner-occupation. We want to ensure that the first duty is sustained and not subject to attacks of stupid rhetoric by the Tories. We intend to call upon the House and local government to support our policy. I believe that we shall get the support of local government.

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 257.

Doig, Peter
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dormand, J. D.
Leadbitter, Ted
Rooker, J. W.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Roper, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Rose, Paul B.


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rowlands, Ted


Eadie, Alex
Lipton, Marcus
Sandelson, Neville


Edge, Geoff
Litterick, Tom
Sedgemore, Brian


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lomas, Kenneth
Selby, Harry


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Loyden, Eddie
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


English, Michael
Luard, Evan
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Ennals, David
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McElhone, Frank
Sillars, James


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Silverman, Julius


Faulds, Andrew
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Skinner, Dennis


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Small, William


Flannery, Martin
Mackintosh, John P.
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Snape, Peter


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, Kevin
Spearing, Nigel


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Madden, Max
Spriggs, Leslie


Ford, Ben
Magee, Bryan
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Stoddart, David


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marks, Kenneth
Stott, Roger


Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David
Strang, Gavin


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


George, Bruce
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Swain, Thomas


Gilbert, Dr John
Maynard, Miss Joan
Taylor, Mrs. Ann (Bolton W)


Ginsburg David
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Golding, John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Gould, Bryan
Mendelson, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Gourlay, Harry
Mikardo, Ian
Thompson, George


Graham, Ted
Millan, Bruce
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Tierney, Sydney


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Tinn, James


Grocott, Bruce
Molloy, William
Tomlinson, John


Harper, Joseph
Moonman, Eric
Tomney, Frank


Harrison, Waller (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Torney, Tom


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Urwin, T. W.


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hatton, Frank
Moyle, Roland
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Heffer, Eric S.
Newens, Stanley
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Henderson, Douglas
Noble, Mike
Ward, Michael


Hooley, Frank
Oakes, Gordon
Watkins, David


Horam John
Ogden, Eric
Weetch, Ken


Howell, Rt Hon Denis
O'Halloran, Michael
Weitzman, David


Huckfield, Les
Orbach, Maurice
Wellbeloved, James


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Welsh, Andrew


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ovenden, John
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Dr David
White, James (Pollok)


Hunter, Adam
Padley, Walter
Whitlock, William


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Palmer, Arthur
Wigley, Dafydd


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Park, George
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Parker, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Parry. Robert
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Janner, Greville
Pavitt, Laurie
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Pendry, Tom
Williams, Sir Thomas


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Perry, Ernest
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


John, Brynmor
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Prescott, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Price, William (Rugby)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Radice, Giles
Woodall, Alec


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Woof, Robert


Judd, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Kelley, Richard
Robertson, John (Paisley)



Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Robinson, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kinnock, Neil
Roderick, Caerwyn
Mr. James Hamilton and


Lamond, James
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. A. W. Stallard.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Awdry, Daniel
Benyon, W.


Aitken, Jonathan
Baker, Kenneth
Berry, Hon Anthony


Alison, Michael
Banks, Robert
Biffen, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Beith, A. J.
Blaker, Peter


Arnold, Tom
Bell, Ronald
Body, Richard


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Boscawen, Hon Robert







Bottomley, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Osborn, John


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, John (Harrow West)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes(Brent)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Heseltine, Michael
Pardoe, John


Brittan, Leon
Hicks, Robert
Parkinson, Cecil


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Higgins, Terence L.
Penhallgon, David


Brotherton, Michael
Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hooson, Emlyn
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hordern, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Budgen, Nick
Howell, David (Guildford)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Bulmer, Esmond
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Burden, F. A.
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Raison, Timothy


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hunt, John
Rathbone, Tim


Carlisle, Mark
Hurd, Douglas
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Channon, Paul
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Churchill, W. S.
Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Jessel, Toby
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Clegg, Walter
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Ridsdale, Julian


Cockcroft, John
Jopling, Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cope, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Cormack, Patrick
Kimball, Marcus
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Corrie, John
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Costain, A. P.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Crouch, David
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Sainsbury, Tim


Crowder, F. P.
Knight, Mrs Jill
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Knox, David
Scott, Nicholas


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lamont, Norman
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lane, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shepherd, Colin


Drayson, Burnaby
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shersby, Michael


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lawrence, Ivan
Silvester, Fred


Durant, Tony
Lawson, Nigel
Sims, Roger


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sinclair, Sir George


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Elliott, Sir William
Lloyd, Ian
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Emery, Peter
Loveridge, John
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Eyre, Reginald
Luce, Richard
Speed, Keith


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fairgrieve, Russell
McCrindle, Robert
Sproat, Iain


Farr, John
Macfarlane, Neil
Stainton, Keith


Fell, Anthony
MacGregor, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stanley, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Madel, David
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stokes, John


Forman, Nigel
Marten, Neil
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Fox, Marcus
Mather, Carol
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fry, Peter
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Temple-Morris, Peter


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mawby, Ray
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mayhew, Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D.


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mills, Peter
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Miscampbell, Norman
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wakeham, John


Goodhew, Victor
Moate, Roger
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Goodlad, Alastair
Monro, Hector
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Gorst, John
Montgomery, Fergus
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Wall, Patrick


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Walters, Dennis


Gray, Hamish
Morgan, Geraint
Weatherill, Bernard


Griffiths, Eldon
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Wells, John


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Wiggin, Jerry


Grylls, Michael
Mudd, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Hall, Sir John
Neave, Airey
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Hall-Davis. A. G. F.
Nelson, Anthony
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Newton, Tony
Younger, Hon George


Hampson, Dr Keith
Normanton, Tom



Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Nott, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Havers, Sir Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Mr. Michael Roberts.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved.
That this House, recognising the desirability of encouraging the widest possible choice of


tenure including owner occupation, equity sharing, co-operatives and renting, considers that the question of whether public sector houses should be sold to their occupiers should be decided locality by locality in the light of serious and unbiased consideration of the housing needs of the area concerned and welcomes Her Majesty's Government's continuing examination of this matter both in relation to local authorities and to new towns.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS (FELIXSTOWE) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that there has been a Committee stage on the Bill. Unfortunately, the record of that Committee stage, be it long or short, is not available in the Vote Office. I am told that the Vote Office has not received it. I understand that the Private Bill Office also does not have available the record of the Committee stage of the Bill which the House is now to consider. I appreciate that it is a Private Bill, and I am advised that the Committee dealt with only one or two minor amendments.
The point of principle that I wish to put to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that it cannot be right for the House now to be asked to deal with the remaining stages of the Bill without having access to the report of the Committee stage deliberations. I do not believe that we can continue and arrive at a decision upon the Bill until we know what our colleagues in Committee did.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. One amendment to the Bill was made by the Committee. This was the insertion of subsection (2) of Clause 6. It appears on page 5 of the Bill and reads as follows:
Clause 2 of the said agreement shall continue in force and be binding on the Board until varied or determined by any enactment or other provision having the force of an Act of Parliament.
The effect of the amendment is that the agreement shall continue in force and be binding on the board until varied or determined by any future statutory provision. The amendment was inserted at the Committee's request.

Mr. Griffiths: That is a most helpful explanation from the Chair, but it is totally wrong for the House of Commons to be asked to consider the remaining stages of a Bill, and an amendment that has been inserted, presumably at the request of the Committee, without first


having an indication of the contents of the debate and the reasons which led the Committee to insert the amendment, of which I knew nothing until you so kindly drew my attention to it, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: To deal with the hon. Gentleman's second point first, the Bill which the hon. Gentleman has before him contains the words "(as amended in Committee)". I cleared up that point by what I said previously.
I fear that I have no knowledge of the report of the Committee's deliberations, who reported them and when the report was published. I am unable to give the hon. Gentleman that information, but I shall endeavour to discover it during the course of the debate.

Mr. Keith Stainton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Printed on the Bill now before the House is the phrase" (as amended in Committee)", but one has to search with great assiduity to determine just what is the alteration or amendment. You have been very helpful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in clearing up that point, but the point of order on the report of the deliberations is substantial.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let me enlighten the hon. Gentleman. I understand that it is the responsibility of the promoters to provide a record of what took place.

Mr. Stainton: So I understand. I raise this point of order not in ignorance, but in protest. The promoters of the Bill have not disturbed themselves to provide hon. Members with the transcript of Committee proceedings. Not only was there an amendment to the Bill in Committee, which might have serious legal repercussions on the supposed contract underlying the Bill, but undertakings were given to another party—namely, Trinity College, Cambridge—which are recorded in the transcripts. These are bound to be referred to tonight in terms of the powers of the Secretary of State with regard to compulsory purchase and the direction of traffic to and from Felixstowe Dock. How are we to proceed in these circumstances? This is a substantial point of order.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: On a point of order Mr.

Deputy Speaker. I was aware of the amendment which was made to the Bill in Committee, but I disagree with it. I think that it was a bad and wrong amendment, and I have great objection to it. I cannot conceive why it was made. It is incredible that we should be confronted with an amendment to a Bill —incidentally, a Bill which only just got a Second Reading—and that we should not be given a chance to find out why that amendment was made because there is no report of the proceedings.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is developing a point which should be made in debate on consideration rather than on a point of order.

Mr. Ridley: We cannot proceed with this debate without a report of the Committee proceedings. With great respect, I suggest that it is wrong to proceed with this discussion without the report being made available to us.
The promoters of the Bill have failed in their duty to provide the necessary documentation. If the promoters cannot be bothered making the necessary documents available, it is wrong that they should be allowed to obtain this stage of the Bill in default of their obligations Is there any procedure by which we can adjourn the proceedings until we have the records?

Mr. Julius Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have copies of the transcript. I do not know whether other hon. Members have inquired at the Private Bill Office. I have copies, so presumably they are available.

Mr. David Lane: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I support very much the observations of my hon. Friends. As I am the Member for the constituency of one of the parties involved, I have a special interest.
Hon. Members have mentioned some undertakings which were given. We have no record of them. I have some information third-hand about them but it is a wholly unsatisfactory situation if most of us are supposed to consider the Bill further tonight without a proper record of the arguments in Committee and the undertakings there given. How could we


get this debate adjourned until we are properly informed?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The transcript is not normally made available. Normally, a Bill is reprinted as amended, and that is the sum total of it.

Mr. Stainton: On a point of order. I hesitate to cross swords with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but surely this is a matter which is left entirely to the discretion and cost of the promoters of the Bill. If they choose to inform hon. Members, so that they can debate the matter intelligently, that is up to them. But surely to assert and imply that the transcript is not normally made available must not be understood as meaning that hon. Members were denied same. The matter has gone by default.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When a Private Bill passes through Committee unamended, it is often considered unnecessary to make the transcript available, just as with Public Bills there is a restriction on the debate on Report if the Bill has gone through Committee unamended. But when a Bill has been amended in Committee, the House is entitled to be made formally aware of the deliberations in Committee.
Under Standing Order No. 7, it is the concern of Mr. Deputy Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means to set down Private Business and to determine when it should be discussed. Now that we have drawn to your attention the fact that the required information is not available, you have a duty to withdraw this measure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to say that this is not a suitable time, for deliberations on it.
It is not your fault, but the promoters have not made transcripts of Committee proceedings available. That being so, you should say that this is a rather inappropriate time to debate the matter.

Mr. Norman Fowler (Sutton Cold-field): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The reason we are taking this debate, or were going to take it, was that an amendment had been made. Had no amendment been made, this debate would not have been possible. How can we proceed without a record of the proceedings upon which the amendment was

made? I suggest that we adjourn in view of the circumstances until the proper records are available.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I explained earlier, it is not usual for records of these Committees to be circulated to hon. Members. All that happens is that the Bill is reprinted in the amended form.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am obliged for the courteous way in which you dealt with my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but two points plainly emerge. First, certain hon. Gentlemen have a record of the Committee proceedings. I congratulate them, but I am sure that it is important that the House as a whole should have that record. It cannot be right for the record to be available for some hon. Members and not for others.
Secondly, of course I accept that although it is not usual to circulate or make available these transcripts, if any hon. Member seeking to participate in the debate has asked for the transcript in order adequately to assess the position, it is the duty of the promoters to ensure that the transcript is available. The transcript is not available. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) in asking, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you can instruct the promoters to make a copy of the transcript available to all Members of the House as it is apparently available to some.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot instruct the promoters to make available a copy of the transcript to all hon. Members. It could be arranged for a transcript to be provided, and one would have been provided had it been asked for.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of information, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that I went to the Public Bill Office in the normal way and was told the, transcript was not available? I tried to telephone the Private Bill Office and was not able to get through, no doubt because others were telephoning at the same time. But I understand from several of my hon. Friends that copies are not available.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is what I understand, but if notice had been given earlier by any hon. Member a transcript could have been provided by request. I suggest to the House that since the


amendment is a simple one—I have read out the substance of it—it will be much better for the House to proceed to the consideration of the Bill now. If we do not do so—and it lies within my power, if necessary, to terminate the proceed- ings—that will only put back the time- table. I know that hon. Members desire to have a further occasion on which to debate the Bill. It must also go to an- other place, and if the timetable is not met that could well invalidate the whole matter. I draw the attention of the House to that because the time given for Private Business is fairly precious.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I may throw some light on the matter. I personally asked at the Vote Office for a copy of the proceedings of the Commit- tee. I was told that it did not deal with this subject but that I could get information from the Clerk's office. No proceedings were given to me there: and that was about a week ago. I am deeply concerned because of the way the Bill affects Trinity College. I believe that certain undertakings were given, but if there is no transcript I do not know what the undertakings were or whether they will prove satisfactory.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not hear a reply from you to my question about whether it was you who selected the time for the debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The business is put down in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does that imply, therefore, that if you are satisfied that the House cannot reasonably proceed in this matter because it has been deprived of information which it needs, you can protect the right of the House to have access to that information before it proceeds further in the matter? The parliamentary agents and the promoters have conducted themselves in a contemptuous way in that they expect the House to entertain further consideration of a Bill without ensuring that a transcript of the Committee proceedings is available to the House. It is possible for firms of parliamentary agents to be deprived of their status. As parliamentary agents

they have duties towards as well as access to the House. In failing to ensure that transcripts were available when they knew from the Order Paper that this matter was to be debated tonight, they have not conducted themselves in a manner which the House is entitled to expect of them.

Mr. Peter Fry: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I, too, was unable to obtain a copy of the transcripts. Surely it is irrelevant to the House that the Bill may face a difficult timetable. It is up to the promoters of the Bill to provide the proper papers and documents. It is not for the House to have to alter or truncate its proceedings to meet a failure by the promoters. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you reconsider your ruling?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps, having consulted the good book, I can be of assistance in this matter. I refer to page 988 of the most recent edition of "Erskine May" dealing with Private Business and proceedings in the Commons. It states:
If any Member gives notice in the Private Bill Office, before the first sitting of the committee on the bill, that he requires copies, the agent for the promoters arranges for these to be supplied.
It goes on to say that no charge is made unless a large number of copies is required.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely, before the first sitting of the Committee hon. Members do not know whether the Bill will be amended. That is not known until the conclusion of the Committee proceedings. Although "Erskine May" suggests that the obligation to provide a transcript arises in certain circumstances, nowhere does it say that there is no obligation to make it available to the House. Hon. Members cannot know beforehand whether they will need it. Tonight's consideration arises only because of an event of which no hon. Member could have been aware before the Commitee sat—namely, that the Committee amended the Bill. Therefore, nobody was in a reasonable position to decide that he would need a transcript for a Report stage which he did not know would take place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is wrong. "Erskine May" is perfectly clear. It says:
If any Member gives notice in the Private Bill Office, before the first sitting of the committee on the bill, that he requires copies, the agent for the promoters arranges for these to be supplied.
A considerable amount of time is being taken up on this point of order. The amendment is a simple one. It will be in the best interests of the House, in view of the timetable which I mentioned before, that we should now continue with the debate.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You referred to the timetable for the Bill and suggested that in some way it was your duty and that of the House to secure the passage of the Bill before the end of the parliamentary Session—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I never said that it was the duty of the House in any respect to do that. It is my duty to put down Private Business, and that is all that should be inferred from what I said.

Mr. Ridley: But you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you had to put it down in time for it to go to another place, to come back here and complete all its stages. That cannot be so. The implication of that is that if a Private Bill was put down on 29th July you would feel it incumbent upon yourself to accommodate its passage before the House rose for the Summer Recess.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is most certainly not the case. The hon. Member has completely misunderstood my original remarks.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The quotation which the Clerk advised you to read out has nothing to do with the entitlement of Members to the minutes of proceedings. It has to do only with at whose expense the minutes shall be produced. That is why I said that it was inappropriate. It is inappropriate to quote an extract from a paragraph which has nothing to do with the point at issue. The point in question is the entitlement of Members to have before them the papers necessary to deal with the Bill, which is entirely uncon-

nected with the question of expense to the parties. The learned Clerk therefore misled you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in advising you to quote that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not so. I have quoted what is stated in "Erskine May". Incidental to the fact is the question of who shall pay the expenses for the provision of the report. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman reads other parts, he will see that
The Standing Order also provides that the Chairman of Ways and Means may authorise the printing of minutes of evidence if the promoters apply to him, not less than six clear days before the first meeting of the committee, for permission to print instead of to duplicate.
This is merely a question of the mechanics of it, but the fact remains that, had any hon. Member desired to have the detail in extenso, it would have been available had the application been made to the Private Bill Office, which in turn would have obtained it from the promoters.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Anyone who cares to read the section headed "Minutes of Evidence" will see quite clearly that it has only to do with at whose expense the papers are made available. It is not a ruling at all but a quotation from "Erskine May" which any hon. Member can read for himself.
There is a very important point of principle at stake, namely, whether the House shall have available to it the papers which it needs in order to conduct its proceedings. There is nothing in "Erskine May" which says that a Member shall have the proceedings of a Committee on a Private Bill made available to him only if he puts in a request before the Committee has sat. Nowhere in "Erskine May" or in Standing Orders is there any such advice or regulation.
I submit that it is a duty of the parliamentary agent acting for the promoters to ensure that these papers are available should Members require them. Once it is known from the Order Paper that the matter is coming up before the House, it is the duty of the parliamentary agent, in presenting himself to the House with his Bill—he is outside the Box now—to ensure that there are supplies of these papers available. He has not done so, and that approaches a contempt of the


House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, inasmuch as a contempt of the House is an action taken in the case of a party outside the House which prejudices a parliamentary—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is going a little wide of the mark. Mr. Mendelson.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member who has just addressed the House at great length is treating this matter as if he were the only Member in the House who has ever served on a Committee on a Private Bill. There are many hon. Members present who have gone through this experience several times.
What you have said to the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is, with respect, absolutely correct. Any Member who has served -xi a Committee on a Private Bill will bear me out. It is usual for a Bill to be printed in its amended form, and that is the documentation then provided for debate in the House, as you have already explained. It would be nothing but disorderly conduct to go on raising further points of order and preventing the debate from proceeding.
We have listened to deliberate attempts to go over the same points again and again. The point I am putting to you now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with great respect, is this. You have explained the position as it is within the experience of all Members who have served on such Committees as I have. All that has been usual on those occasions is that an amended Bill has been provided to Members. No other obligation has rested on the agent in charge of the Bill. We ought to proceed now on your interpretation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and go on with the business of debating the Bill.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Stainton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect, I aver that I have served on at least as many Private Bill Committees as any other Member present at this moment. I invite the hon. Member who is in charge of the whipping of the Government to deny that as a fact. I have great familiarity with these matters, and I am not prepared to be taken for a ride by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) or anyone else. I am wholly

cognisant of the procedures in these matters and I feel entitled to make this point of order with some force. I think that there is a matter of principle here which cannot be lightly disposed of. Frankly, I do not carry around in my head any cognisance of page 988 of "Erskine May ", let alone page 987 or page 989. I am at a loss because I have not the text before me. If we were to adjourn for a short time, perhaps I could go to the Library—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. I have made inquiries and I find that there are a limited number of copies of the document in the Private Bill Office at the present time. I understand that they have been there for some considerable time. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been able to find out for himself, but that is my information.

Mr. Stainton: I must resume my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which is neither factious nor fractious, and I put it forward with the utmost temerity. It is a point of some importance. Let us have none of the Gilbertian attitudes. I put it forward with sincerity. It has been known for some considerable time by you in your office as Chairman of Ways and Means that I have a great identity with the purport of the Bill, being the Member for the constituency in which lies the port of Felixstowe.
I have been in frequent touch with the Clerk to the your office. I have also been in frequent touch with the Private Bill Office. Through the good offices of the Private Bill Office, I have been constantly furnished with a wide variety of documents. For the past fortnight, until roughly midnight on Sunday, I have been on an IPU delegation to the Middle East. I was, in fact accompanied by various other Hon. Members. [Interruption.] I am sure that we shall not be distracted by these irrelevant intrusions—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman come to his point?

Mr. Stainton: I am coming to it as rapidly as I can. I have been in touch with various offices over a long period of weeks, perhaps months now, on this matter and have kept myself closely informed. You now say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that indeed there are copies available. There are more copies, per-


haps, than there were earlier this evening, when one or two could be found with some difficulty. How one apprises oneself of the content, drift and purpose of the documents when the debate is already under way, I am at a loss to comprehend. You have read out and identified Clause 6(2), but the reasons underlying that are entirely left to the interpretation, I presume, of the Chairman of the Committee and his advocacy, or whomsoever it may be from the Treasury Bench.
I understand that important parts of this debate will have to do with undertakings given by the promoters—I presume that they are endorsed by the Secretary of State for the Environment—to Trinity College. One wonders in precisely what form those are. They are in the transcript, presumably. I would have queried anyway—and I intend to do so if I have the good fortune to pursue this during any debate—the validity and applicability in a court of law of anything recorded in the transcript. But, certainly, if we do not have such transcripts before us tonight we are at a loss to evaluate what has been said and the general emphasis placed on this matter by the Department itself.
Finally, in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I point out that a statement was circulated this morning by the agents for the promoters of the Bill. If they found it possible to circulate a statement this morning, they could equally have circulated a transcript or extracts therefrom.
In addition, important in this matter is the respective efficiency of private enterprise and nationalisation vis-à-vis the British Transport Docks Board. Although I was overseas last week, I understand that last Thursday the British Transport Docks Board announced its preliminary financial results for the last financial year. Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Ioan Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order—

Mr. Stainton: Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) will complete his point of order.

Mr. Stainton: I apologise if points of order are not necessarily always utterly curtailed. I am doing my best to explain a complex situation. I must refer to the fact that the British Transport Docks Board's financial results were available in the Press on Thursday of last week. On telephoning the Secretary to the British Transport Docks Board this afternoon, I could not make contact. However, I made contact with the Press office, which informed me that Press copies had been circulated to selected Members of Parliament, and it was understood that I was on that list. I am still awaiting a copy of those financial results. Presumably they are—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. To whom the document purported to have been sent and in what selection is not a matter for the Chair. I now propose that we get on with the debate.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The points have been made and well taken. This can only eat into the time available for consideration of the Bill. I consider that we should proceed.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fully appreciate your desire that we should make progress on this matter, but there is a much broader consideration. I hope that Labour Members will for a moment put aside their thought about Felixstowe and look at the general question of the order of the House of Commons. If this were some other Bill that Labour Members opposed, they would take precisely the same view as is being taken by the Opposition—namely, that the proper order and procedures of the House are being abused.
I put to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, three specific points, and I shall be obliged if you will rule on them. First, a public body—the British Transport Docks Board—has failed to make available to the House of Commons material which is relevant to the Bill that it is trying to promote. I hope you will make it clear that no statutory body—a servant of this House—should abuse Parliament in that way.
The second point, which has been adverted to by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop)


is that parliamentary agents are also quasi-servants of this House and that they have shown gross discourtesy. I do not say that they were obliged to provide the transcript. I say that it was a matter of courtesy to this House that the parliamentary agents should have provided it. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will rule and make it plain that that type of discourtesy is unacceptable to Parliament. Indeed, I follow my hon. Friend's suggestion that there must be circumstances in which parliamentary agents are deprived of their access to and privilege of the House of Commons which we, and only we, give to them.
The third point is simple and practical, and I hope that you will rule on it. Apparently selected Members have been provided with transcripts of the Committee's proceedings. The Chairman of the Committee displayed a number of transcripts—eight or 10—in his hand.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will deal with this point immediately. I think that it will be found that the transcripts to which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) referred, which the Chairman of the Committee had, were given to members of the Committee. Perhaps he will confirm that.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I had not completed my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Clerk of the Committee, now behind the Chair, at my request has been upstairs to obtain the transcripts so that hon. Members may read them and get on with the debate. But the Clerk informs me that there are only two or three copies. Of course it is necessary for the Private Bill Office to retain one copy for its records. That means that two transcripts are available for the House.
Would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, wish to accept the invidious responsibility of selecting which two Members should have the only two copies and which other Members should be denied them? That is the position in which we are placed. It cannot be right for the debate to proceed when some Members are fully informed and can therefore do their duty to their constituents and the nation effectively, but other Members are kept in the dark. That is wholly wrong. I hope that you will make it plain that we cannot proceed until all Members have had equal

access to the matter that we are to consider tonight.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) incorrectly stated the procedure. Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman entirely missed the point that whether the House has a Report stage of this nature depends on whether there has been an amendment in Committee.
When the same firm of parliamentary agents, with conspicuous lack of success, was engaged with the promoters of the Ashdown Forest Bill, which was opposed by many Labour as well as Conservative Members, transcripts of the Committee's proceedings were available before the debate. Copies were not restricted to those who had asked for them before the Committee.
There is nothing new in recognising that the House wants to know the facts which have been examined by the Committee before proceeding. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman, who presumed on a knowledge that he does not possess, would do well to confine his advice to the House to matters of which he may have more accurate knowledge. I wish to put that on record lest a false piece of information given to the House should achieve the spurious status of a precedent.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What are your powers to stop this tawdry and cheap conspiracy by the Opposition to stop this Bill from being debated? On several occasions you have ruled and quoted the guidance given in "Erskine May". It appears that Opposition Members have been attempting to challenge your ruling.
The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) said that he had not received the British Transport Docks Board report and accounts for 1975. Again, that was a tedious and unnecessary attempt to delay the debate on the Bill, for those accounts are available in the Vote Office. I understand that they have been available for almost a week. It is quite clear that the Opposition are trying to block this measure. What power do you have to enable us to get on with the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Out of courtesy to the House, I am always prepared to


listen to points of order, but I appeal to the House, as I have done before, that we should now get on with the debate. Two copies of the transcript have been brought from the Private Bill Office for hon. Members to refer to and more copies could have been made available if they had been requested earlier. They were only asked for at 6·45 this evening.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a serious issue at stake here. The reason this debate is taking place is that an amendment was made in Committee. There is no way in which the vast majority of hon. Members can get a record of what happened in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) has said that some days ago he went to the Private Bill Office to ask for a copy of the record of proceedings. I have no wish not to debate this issue, but it would be in the interests of proper debate if we had an adjournment so that the whole House could be properly informed on this matter.

Mr. Ridley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It cannot be right that in order to obtain a transcript of the proceedings in Committee one should have to make application before the Committee sits. It is like saying that the only hon. Members who could receive the Hansard of proceedings in the House were those who applied for it before our debates took place. One only wishes to read the transcript of a Committee when one has some idea of what has happened.
The passage you quoted from "Erskine May" is clearly a nonsense. How can the House set about changing "Erskine May" so that in future it is incumbent upon the promoters of Private Bills to give transcripts of proceedings after the Committee stage? Clearly we do not know before a Committee sits whether we shall want a copy of the transcript. There may have been no amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us leave what appears in "Erskine May" for the time being.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Are you going to rule on my suggestion, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member moving, That further consideration of the Bill be adjourned? If not, the Chair has no power to adjourn. A considerable amount of time has been spent on this difficult question and we could move on to consider the Bill. The matter is in the hon. Gentleman's hands. If he wishes to move, That further consideration of the Bill be adjourned, I am prepared to put the Question. Otherwise, I shall call the hon. Member who is acting for the promoters.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you are proposing that a motion be made for further consideration to be adjourned, it would be a matter for debate whether we should accept that motion. I have a new point of order which I should be obliged if you would consider.

Hon. Members: No!

Mr. Griffiths: Hon. Members opposite are seeking to usurp the function of the Chair in ruling on matters of order.
I have obtained a transcript of the Committee's proceedings. The Committee met on three days and the report of its deliberations occupied 58 pages on the first day, 49 pages on the second day and 62 pages on the third day. Whenever this House delegates to its colleagues its responsibility to consider a matter on our behalf, it is right that we should be able to consider the deliberations of the Committee and any amendment made to a Bill.
If hon. Members opposite think it is of no importance that the House should be able to consider the deliberations of Committees, they are flying in the face of what is good order in Parliament. I ask for your ruling on this point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
There is available to me, though not apparently to the vast majority of hon. Members, a copy of the transcript. It must be right for this material to be made available to any hon. Member who wishes to receive it, and we should have sufficient time to read it in order to give our judgment on what was done in Committee in the name of the House. I ask you to rule on this specific proposal.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can deal with this matter very quickly. I have no power so to rule.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbaim: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me, on the basis of "Erskine May", how hon. Members can know whether they wish to have the proceedings of a Committee stage reproduced for them if they have not had the opportunity to read them to know whether they want them to be reproduced in the first place?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the prudence of the hon. Member concerned.

Mr. Robert Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been trying to ask for some time about your indication that hon. Members are obliged to apply before a Committee stage if they require a copy of the proceedings. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) has been trying to catch your eye. Is he the only hon. Member who had demanded a copy of the proceedings before the Committee sat?

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I, with respect, submit that you should protect the House? We have been listening to points of order which have been repeated time and again. You have replied to them all and the time has surely now come when the debate ought to start. I ask you to rule that further repetition of these points or order represents disorderly conduct and an organised attempt to prevent the House from carrying on with its business.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) is ready to move his motion and he and the promoters of the Bill have their rights, too. You ought now to protect the House by ruling that all further points of order are out of order and calling my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich to move his motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are considering the Bill as amended. The House has had a very full opportunity to express its displeasure in certain respects. As I have explained, copies of the transcript would have been available in the Private Bill Office if required.
The House must take its own view, but in my opinion this is not a major amendment. I attempted to explain it and when we debate the matter, it will be explained even more fully by the hon. Member

in charge of the Bill. I therefore propose that it would be convenient for the House, and for good order generally, if we now got down to debating the consideration of the Bill. Mr. Weetch.

Mr. Stainton: rose—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Name him."] Hon. Members should get used to the procedures of the British Parliament.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will refer to the Chair.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to the advisory paragraphs of "Erskine May" but to the mandatory requirements of the Standing Orders on Private Business. Standing Order 131A reads:
Whenever copies of the minutes of the evidence taken before a committee on an opposed private bill are required they shall be duplicated at the expense of the parties.
It then refers to printing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In fact the copies are here.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: But the whole reason for the proceedings of the last hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that they were not here and those hon. Members who required them and who went to the Private Bill Office were not able to get them.

Mr. John Mendelson: Order. Disgraceful!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Those hon. Members who are doing so have been in the House long enough to know that they do not pass between an hon. Member who is speaking and the Chair.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I was making the point that there has been a breach of Standing Order 131A. Those who required duplicated copies of the proceedings of the Committee of an opposed Bill pursuant to Standing Order No. 131A, with which the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) would be familiar, if he had the knowledge of the Private Bill procedure which he affects to claim, went to the Private Bill Office, but they were unable to get a copy despite the provision of the Standing Order on Private Business. That is the gravamen of the complaint. The fact


that some more copies—there are not enough for the number of hon. Members who want them—have been produced in the course of the debate, more than an hour after it began or could have begun, is a breach—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I explained to the hon. Gentleman that copies were available at, certainly, 6.45 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You asked me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether I wished to move a motion. Will you accept the motion, That further consideration of the Bill be adjourned? Is that in order on the grounds that the amendment was made in Committee and that the only reason the debate is taking place is the amendment, and that the House is

Division No. 144.]
AYES
[8.15 pm.


Adley, Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Newton, Tony


Aitken, Jonathan
Glyn, Dr Alan
Nott, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Onslow, Cranley


Awdry, Daniel
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Banks, Robert
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Osborn, John


Beith, A. J.
Grist, Ian
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Bell, Ronald
Hall, Sir John
Pardoe. John


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Penhaligon, David


Blaker, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Percival, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Pink, R. Bonner


Bottomley, Peter
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hooson, Emlyn
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes(Brent)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Reid, George


Brittan, Leon
Hurd, Douglas
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Budgen, Nick
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Burden, F. A.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Ridsdale, Julian


Carlisle, Mark
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, NW)


Churchill, W. S.
Kirk, Sir Peter
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Knight, Mrs Jill
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cockcroft, John
Knox, David
Sims, Roger


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lane, David
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Cope, John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Speed, Keith


Costain, A. P.
Lawson, Nigel
Sproat, Iain


Crouch, David
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stainton, Keith


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lloyd, Ian
Stanley, John


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Drayson, Burnaby
McCusker, H.
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Dunlop, John
Macfarlane, Neil
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Durant, Tony
MacGregor, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Elliott, Sir William
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Emery, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mayhew, Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Eyre, Reginald
Meyer, Sir Anthony
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Moate, Roger
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Fell, Anthony
Molyneaux, James
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Montgomery, Fergus
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Fookes, Miss Janet
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Wall, Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Morgan, Geraint
Weatherill, Bernard


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Winterton, Nicholas


Fry, Peter
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)



Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mudd, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Neave, Airey
Mr. Eldon Griffiths and


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Nelson, Anthony
Mr. Rob in Maxwell-Hyslop.

put in a totally impossible position if there are no records of the Committee proceedings before it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am prepared to accept that motion, but I must warn the House that if I accept it, the Question must be decided forthwith.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: In that case, I shall move the motion for the reasons that I have stated.
I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.

Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 28 (Dilatory motion in abuse of rules of House):—

The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 216.

NOES


Abse, Leo
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Orbach, Maurice


Anderson, Donald
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Ovenden, John


Archer, Peter
Gilbert, Dr John
Padley, Walter


Armstrong, Ernest
Golding, John
Palmer, Arthur


Ashley, Jack
Graham, Ted
Park, George


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Grocott, Bruce
Parker, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Parry, Robert


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central File)
Perry, Ernest


Bates, Alf
Harper, Joseph
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bean, R. E.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Robinson, Geoffrey


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Bishop, E. S.
Hooley, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Horam, John
Rose, Paul B.


Boardman, H.
Howell, Rt Hon Denis
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Huckfleld, Les
Rowlands, Ted


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Sandelson, Neville


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Selby, Harry


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hunter, Adam
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Brown, Hugh D (Provan)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Buchan, Norman
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Buchanan, Richard
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Silverman, Julius


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Skinner, Dennis


Campbell, Ian
John, Brynmor
Small, William


Canavan, Dennis
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Snape, Peter


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Spearing, Nigel


Cartwright, John
Judd, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Kaufman, Gerald
Stallard, A. W.


Clemitson, Ivor
Kelley, Richard
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Stoddart, David


Cohen, Stanley
Kinnock, Neil
Stott, Roger


Concannon, J. D.
Lamond, James
Strang, Gavin


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Leadbitter, Ted
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Corbett, Robin
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Swain, Thomas


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Taylor, Mrs. Ann (Bolton W)


Crawshaw, Richard
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Cronin, John
Lipton, Marcus
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Litterick, Tom
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cunningham, Dr J (Whiteh)
Lomas, Kenneth
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Davidson, Arthur
Luard, Evan
Tierney, Sydney


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Tinn, James


Davies, Denzil (Lianeili)
McElhone, Frank
Tomlinson, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tomney, Frank


Deakins, Eric
 McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Torney, Tom


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McNamara, Kevin
Urwin, T. W.


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Madden, Max
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Dempsey, James
Magee, Bryan
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Doig, Peter
Mahon, Simon
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dormand, J. D.
Mallalleu, J. P. W.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marks, Kenneth
Ward, Michael


Dunn, James A.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Watkins, David


Dunnett, Jack
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Weetch, Ken


Eadie, Alex
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Weitzman, David


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Maynard, Miss Joan
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Meacher, Michael
White, James (Pollok)


English, Michael
Mendelson, John
Whitlock, William


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mikardo, Ian
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Williams, Sir Thomas


Faulds, Andrew
Molloy, William
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Moonman, Eric
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Woodall, Alec


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Moyle, Roland
Woof, Robert


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Ford, Ben
Newens, Stanley
Young, David (Bolton E)


Forrester, John
Noble, Mike
TELLERS FOR THE NOES 


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. Walter Johnson and


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Ogden, Eric
Mr. John Prescott.

Question accordingly negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended be now considered.

Mr. Ken Weetch: I want to apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if my

speech is an anticlimax after the points of order. However, since we had the Second Reading of the Bill, in a debate a number of important things have been established which are relevant and important to the consideration of this measure tonight. The first concerns the


contention made by a number of Opposition Members that the agreement made between the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company and the British Transport Docks Board was not binding. The argument was that, either because of the change in ownership of the shares or because the agreement specifically relies upon parliamentary approval for the vesting of the company in the BTDB, the agreement might not be binding.
In the event, in Committee counsel for the board was able to give assurances that there was no substance in the point. The Committee was satisfied, and counsel for the petitioners did not mount any challenge to that conclusion. That is the factual state of affairs as I understand it.

Mr. Stainton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have copies of the transcript. For the guidance of the House and myself, will the hon. Gentleman refer specifically to these very important assessments?

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Weetch: I am afraid I shall not do so because we have already taken considerable time from this debate, and since transcripts are available I can only ask the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) to look at them for himself; but I can give him the assurance that this is factually so.
With reference to the petitions lodged against the Bill by Trinity College, Cambridge, Felixstowe Port Users Association and European Ferries, the objections centred around two issues: first, the application of the Transport Act 1962 relating to the board's compulsory purchase powers for land; and, secondly, the permanence and validity of the assurances given by the British Transport Docks Board to the company about the way in which the board would conduct the company's affairs in the future.
On the first of those propositions, an acceptable undertaking was given by the board that Section 15 would not be used in relation to the compulsory purchase of land owned by Trinity College, Cambridge, which assurance was found acceptable by the Committee. With regard to the second proposition, an amendment has been accepted that Clause 2 of Schedule I shall continue in force

and be binding upon the board until varied or determined by any enactment or other provision having the force of an Act of Parliament.
Most people will remember the background to these arguments. The original negotiations last autumn between the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company and the British Transport Docks Board—

Mr. Lane: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I say that I am grateful for the assurances but, as he knows, one of the objectors is Trinity College, Cambridge, in my constituency. Before moving to the next section of his speech, will the hon. Member deal with the point of the unsatisfactory nature of the assurances in spite of the discussion in Committee? The information which I have is that the position of Trinity College is unaltered from what it was during the earlier debate. Trinity College is not satisfied with the assurances, and in particular the assurance sought, which the hon. Gentleman did not mention, about the future prosperity of the whole enterprise. The assurances were so heavily qualified that the objectors remain dissatisfied.

Mr. Weetch: I am given to understand, on the best advice, that the assurances given concerning Trinity College, Cambridge were found perfectly acceptable by the Committee. In this connection I must mention that the Committee examined this Private Bill over three days by people with very great experience and for whom I have great respect. No serious objection to it was mounted. Later in my speech I shall discuss assurances that were given about the future prosperity of the port of Felixstowe.
When the negotiations were continued last autumn, from which an agreement ensued, they were between a willing buyer and a willing seller, and for around £5¼ million the assets of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company were to become part of the British Transport Docks Board. Furthermore, an agreement was entered into between the company and the board under which the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, inter alia, undertook to aid and assist the board in the promotion of this Private Bill, which aims at gaining statutory authority for the transfer.
I am very encouraged by what I am sure will be the wholehearted support of the new men at the Felixstowe port for the passage of the Bill. I know that it will have their wholehearted support because, being doyens of free enterprise and supporters of the sanctity of agreements, they will, I am sure, embrace the ethics of this continuing obligation.
Secondly, I hope we shall also have laid to rest the quite bogus assertion that the acquisition by the British Transport Docks Board will mean an increase in the Government's borrowing requirement and in public expenditure.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Is the hon. Gentlemen going to make any comment on the fact that none of the other parties at Felixstowe—the users of the port of Felixstowe to name but one—supports the Bill he is putting forward? Is he simply leaving that question?

Mr. Weetch: I made the point that when the agreement was made last autumn an obligation arose that, despite the change in shareholding of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, the obligation continues. As I understand it, that is the situation now. I can only go by the factual content of that situation. It is stated quite plainly in the report and accounts of the British Transport Docks Board for 1975 that, because of the positive cash flow which the British Transport Docks Board has built up in recent years, the purchase of Felixstowe as part of the board's investment programme can be financed out of its own resources, in the same commercial way as with any other joint stock organisation.
It has been quite unscrupulously conjectured—more, it has been alleged—that the British Transport Docks Board is not interested in the expansion of Felixstowe. This argument has been produced for want of another, because it is quite false. The truth is that the British Transport Docks Board has every intention of undertaking investment and expanding the port in response to the increasing demand which there will be for these facilities in the expanding economy of East Anglia.
There are a number of facets of this continuing debate which it is interesting to note. In a report in the Ipswich Evening Star of 17th May, a comment was made about some salient points which emerged from the annual report of the European

Ferries organization. Referring to the commercial operation by which the shares were acquired, the European Ferries spokesman was reported as saying that there was no politics at all in this takeover. This is typical of the double standard of argument and sleight of hand—perhaps I ought to say "tongue"—which has pervaded this debate from start to finish. Whereas the British Transport Docks Board's attempted acquisition is regarded by our opponents as an expansion of the sinister apparatus of the State and, therefore, political, when we try to do something for free enterprise that is not political. Government supporters have become well used to double standards of argument of that kind.
I submit that the argument at the end of the day is one of practical consideration. By any standards, the British Transport Docks Board is efficient in its complex of operations and is hard-headed and successful in difficult times. In 1975, which was an adverse year for the ports industry, with a decline in world trade and with a recession in British business, the British Transport Docks Board achieved a surplus, before interest but after depreciation, of £12·5 million. More important, the year saw increased operational t efficiency in cargo handling, and we look forward to all these factors having a continuing and constructive influence on the cost structure of the board's operations in the future.
Mention has been made in this House and elsewhere of one phrase which appears in Schedule 1(2)(a) to the effect that the port of Felixstowe will continue to compete for business, subject to the board's overall financial policies and objectives. There has been some objection to that. However, I put it to the House that this has been erroneously interpreted to mean that Felixstowe will be burdened by the existing framework of operations in the British Transport Docks Board when quite the contrary is the case.
All ports within the British Transport Docks Board are given considerable management autonomy and flexibility of operations. But functioning within the general framework of ports all over the country means that Felixstowe port can benefit from established procedures and accumulated experience from a wide geographical spread of operations. I outline one specific example which will


be crucial to the development of Felixstowe Port.

Mr. F. A. Burden: If the port is to have this complete autonomy and freedom, what is the object of nationalising it?

Mr. Weetch: The point I seek to make is that it is given flexibility of operations within an overall controlling framework, and I am very pleased to see that that is so. It is possible to have flexibility within a general framework of policy. I do not think that there is anything very complex in a point like that.

Mr. John Prescott: It has been very successful.

Mr. Weetch: My point, which is the most important in this exercise, concerns the National Dock Labour Scheme. At the moment Felixstowe is a non-scheme port, but sooner or later it will come within the framework of the scheme and become a scheme port. When the scheme comes to Felixstowe, it will be introduced with skill and sympathy and, what is more important, it will be based on experience, because the British Transport Docks Board operates scheme ports and has experience of the delicate negotiations which have to be conducted before it can come into operation.

Mr. Fry: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why what has been a very happy work force in Felixstowe until now should suddenly need this great expertise in the implementation of the National Dock Labour Scheme? Surely that work force is liable to be loyal and do a good job. What new element is being introduced?

Mr. Weetch: There are complexities attached to the National Dock Labour Scheme. I suggest that introducing it into the port, where there is a new concept, is a delicate operation. Experience in putting it into operation is a crucial factor and that is what the British Transport Docks Board has.
The last time I spoke to the shop stewards of the Felixstowe port they expressed a desire, and a demand, for the scheme to be introduced. However, I have doubts about how much sympathy the present free enterprise management has for the National Dock Labour

Scheme. If it possesses the same outlook as some hon. Members opposite who, as far as I can see, appear to exemplify the political spirit of the present European Ferries management, it has no time for the scheme at all.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: The hon. Gentleman said that he spoke to the trade unions at Felixstowe. Is it not a fact that the trade unionists in Felixstowe have remained completely neutral in this matter and that privately they are supporting the scheme for European Ferries?

Mr. Weetch: Yes, that is so. When I saw the shop stewards' committee the shop stewards said that this was a political matter to be left to Parliament and that therefore they would be neutral, but they said to me strongly that they wanted the National Dock Labour Scheme at Felixstowe and that they demanded it. The point I was making was that if this is going to mean that the scheme does not come into ports like Felixstowe as a result of the British Transport Docks Board experience, there is likely to be a period of friction and possibly misunderstanding at the port.
The port of Felixstowe, and what happens to its future, must be placed in its East Anglian context. East Anglia, in terms of its economic expertise, is one of the fastest growing regions in Great Britain. In terms of its population and its economy, it is making an increasing impact on the British economy as a whole. It is for this reason that the complex of ports serving East Anglia assumes such significance. This is the economic context in which the House debates this proposition.
As someone who has taken an active interest in the economic progress of the East Anglian region, I believe that the port of Felixstowe ought to become part of the framework of the ports of the British Transport Docks Board, and I hope that the House will give this measure its substantial support.

8. 45 p. m.

Mr. Ridsdale: I have followed what the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) has been saying. We have had excellent labour relations in the ports of East Anglia and I was most disturbed by some of the political inferences he was drawing towards the end of his speech.


I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman looks at his speech again he will regret some of the words he used, because they were not moderate words. Indeed, they were strong words and threats which I hope will not be continued.
As the Member of Parliament for Harwich, I have had a close association with Felixstowe and, indeed, with the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company and its great benefactor, Gordon Parker, for the last 10 years. In spite of competing with each other, the Haven ports of Felixstowe, Parkestone, Harwich Navy Yard and Ipswich have co-operated very well indeed. Indeed, over the last six years, we have formed the Haven ports, in which, although competing with each other, we have been able to iron out a considerable number of our difficulties and support a demand for what is vital for all the ports in the area—better road communications.
Unfortunately, just at a time of expansion, in 1973, Felixstowe suffered a slump in trade and was caught up in a cash flow problem, made worse by the threat of nationalisation, which made it almost impossible to raise capital. That is why, in the first place, I do not wish to be doctrinaire. I have a British Railways port and a private dock in my constituency and I recognise that the hon. Member for Ipswich has a locally-controlled port in his, so I know some of the problems which arise, and supported the offer of the British Transport Docks Board.

Mr. Prescott: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member's speech, but is it in order for people in the Special Gallery—owners of Townsend Ferries—to pass notes to the Opposition Front Bench?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are arrangements at both ends of the Chamber for such a procedure to be adopted.

Mr. Ridsdale: Knowing the cash flow problems of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, I welcomed the first offer of the British Transport Docks Board, not that I wish to be doctrinaire in any way about the board. One knows how much better the board has done. under the excellent management of Sir

Humphrey Browne, than some of the other nationalised industries. Indeed, under his management it has learned the vital art of controlling a nationalised industry—that is, decentralisation.
However, when the offer came from European Ferries, I welcomed it. When the Government are spending 60p in every pound that is spent in this country, do they want to encourage further Government expenditure when private investment and saving can do the job perfectly well? Then scarce public resources could be used for other projects—or, better still, taxation could be reduced so that private companies or individuals could invest their money in such projects.
I have looked at the record of European Ferries. Over the last 10 years its management has been excellent, and it has a record of good growth. The offer has had 97 per cent. acceptance by the shareholders of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company. The hon. Member for Ipswich made some gritty legal points, but he cannot ignore the fact that 97 per cent. of the shareholders have accepted the offer.

Mr. Burden: There seems to be some misconception that the board of management owns the company. The company is owned by the shareholders, and they have made evident what they wish to be done.

Mr. Ridsdale: rose—

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for raising this matter rather late, but I would ask you to reconsider your answer to the point of order by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). I never knew it to be in order for someone to take notes from or to pass notes from the Public Gallery.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: So far as I am concerned, there is nothing that I have seen that is improper. Certainly there are occasions, when there are parliamentary agents under the Gallery, when such events take place.

Mr. William Ross: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not concerned about what you saw but about what you have said and the precedent that you may well have established.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Certainly in my experience over a number of years, whether it is in order or whether it is not in order, it has certainly been the practice.

Mr. William Ross: It is not in order.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is certainly a practice in Standing Committee. I have done it myself in the Scottish Standing Committee, as the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will know. That was when a note was passed by the Town Clerk of Edinburgh to myself. It is certainly in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What happens in a Standing Committee is not necessarily what happens in this Chamber.

Mr. Ridsdale: The offer has been accepted by 97 per cent. of shareholders in the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company. They, and not the management, are the owners of the company. The offer has been supported by local interests and by the unions themselves, as indicated by the hon. Member for Ipswich. The port users have also supported the offer.
On my side of the river at Harwich we are particularly anxious about further investment in the development of the Haven ports complex as a whole. Over the last two years, since this Government have been in power, I have been concerned about the way in which the Government have baulked private investment on our side of the river. They are baulking investment on our side of the river in the same way as they are baulking investment on the Felixstowe side.
I refer to the Bathside Bay Project, investment in which has been proposed to the Government many times. However, the Government have baulked it. That investment is by private enterprise, not the Government. Those who wish to invest want to see the proper development of our side of the river, as do investors on the Felixstowe side. The Government have baulked this investment for the same reasons that they are opposing private investment in the port of Felixstowe. Their reasons are doctrinaire. They can see no solution for the ports other than nationalisation and
the creation of a port monopoly using public funds.
For the good of Felixstowe, I am certain that European Ferries should be the natural successors to the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company. If the Government wish to see further investment in the Haven port complex and to ensure healthy competition between rival ports, they should encourage private investment in the Bathside Bay Project, because private investment in it is supported by British Rail—a nationalised concern—and by the Harwich Navy Yard.
The Prime Minister has rightly said that he wants to see the mixed economy working properly. Let him, therefore, look again at what is happening in the Harwich ports. It is not in the best interests of the economy, of the proper development of trade, or of using scarce capital investment resources in the right way. We must ensure that healthy and friendly competition is not knocked on the head for doctrinaire reasons. Private capital investment is being prevented, even though it is vital for the further flow of trade when our economy again gets into its stride.
On our side of the river we strongly support my hon. Friend for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) in his valiant battle to prevent this port from being controlled by the British Transport Docks Board and ensuring that it goes to European Ferries.

Mr. Lane: I oppose consideration of the Bill on grounds of national policy and one particular constituency interest. In passing, I wish to protest again that we are having to take this stage without adequate documentation.
I do not want to repeat at length all the arguments of principle that we discussed on Second Reading, but it is relevant to remind the House of certain events since then. They are mainly a variety of labour troubles at Hull and Southampton. I shall briefly give five or six examples which are relevant to the fears of many users of Felixstowe and others concerned with Felixstowe that if the takeover goes ahead as proposed in the Bill there will be a deterioration in the hitherto excellent relations there.
My first example is the dispute at Hull between dockers and employees of the British Waterways Board, which seems to me a most significant example of what might happen later at Felixstowe. It also led to a very unusual Press statement by the chairman of one nationalised body, the British Waterways Board, critical of the consequences of the policy of another—the British Transport Docks Board.
The British Waterways Board had spent a great deal of money and effort developing a system for bringing cargoes down the rivers in barges to Hull and putting them directly aboard catamaran ships which would take them across to the Continent. That operation was completely blocked by Hull dockers, who went on to maintain blacking of British Waterways Board barge fleets at inland terminals for 18 days. The bargemen of the British Waterways Board, in total frustration, blockaded the entrance to the King George and Queen Elizabeth Dock at Hull, bottling up 15 ships inside and keeping six more waiting outside. The dispute was constantly in the national Press during early April and mid-April.
Continued representations to the British Transport Docks Board, which was in the same office building as the British Waterways Board, had produced no result. If a fellow nationalised industry can produce no results, what hope have outsiders in any similar situation in the future? In complete frustration, the Chairman of the British Waterways Board on 14th April issued his remarkable Press statement calling for a full public inquiry into Hull.
That is the most disturbing of the events in Hull and Southampton since Second Reading which are very relevant to the Felixstowe proposal. I shall mention the other disturbing examples without going into details. There has been at Hull recently maladministration by the British Transport Docks Board of a modern warehouse. My third example at Hull is a demarcation dispute between the dockers and 80 cargo riggers, the men who traditionally lash down cargo, who claim that the dockers were trying to take over their jobs. That happened in mid-April. My final example at Hull is the proposed rundown of the 23-man engineering section, details of which have been sent to the Minister for Transport.
My Southampton example is of a dispute in mid-April between cargo riggers and dockers exactly similar to that at Hull.
The relevance to Felixstowe is that, with all that evidence of labour troubles, mismanagement and prospective partial closures in major ports of the British Transport Docks Board during the brief period since Second Reading, it is no wonder people feel severe apprehension about the future prosperity of Felixstowe. As we all know, there have been first-class labour relations for years at Felixstowe. From time to time there have been minor difficulties, but they have always been resolved by people who can quickly take decisions on the spot.
9. 0 p. m.
Summarising the opposition of a great many people at Felixstowe and elsewhere to the further progress of the Bill, I mention first the unsatisfactory assurances in the Bill and the unsatisfactory assurances given to the Committee, to which I shall revert. Secondly, I mention the poor labour relations, of which I have given examples, in other British Transport Docks Board ports. Thirdly, there is the attitude of the port users' association at Felixstowe which represents 85 port users—the overwhelming majority. The association remains strongly opposed to the takeover proposed in the Bill. Then, again, there is the danger of other British Transport Docks Board ports being given preference over Felixstowe in new investment.
It is clear to me that the board is doing everything it can to build up Immingham, which is in direct competition with Felixstowe for the roll-on/roll-off container trade, and is also doing all it can to build up Southampton, which is in direct competition with Felixstowe for the deep-sea container trade. I cannot believe that the board would spend substantial sums on building up Felixstowe to create competition for Immingham and Southampton, both of which need more trade.
Then there is the importance of the one-port owner compared with the multi-port owner. I shall not develop that theme because it was thoroughly discussed in the Second Reading debate.
There are the financial realities and the human realities of the matter in contrast


to mere verbal assurances. The people concerned in the future of Felixstowe want assurances that the owner of the dock has no financial stake in any materially competing port. That is the financial reality. The human reality is that Felixstowe should remain in the hands of people who have shown by their performance elsewhere that they can achieve and maintain the right personal relationships and so preserve the good labour relations which have been a feature of Felixstowe in the past. Those are the more general objections as briefly as I can put them.
Before concluding, I must, if the House will permit, explain the constituency interest of Cambridge, which is not at once apparent, and why that has not been properly met by the so-called assurances. As I tried to explain briefly in the debate en the Money Resolution after the Second Reading debate, much of the land concerned in the Felixstowe port development is owned by Trinity College in my constituency. It is an important provider of income which is used by Trinity College for a varitety of educational purposes and general community purposs in my constituency, to which I can bear witness. Trinity College is not satisfied with the assurances so far as they will guarantee the future flow of that income on which so much else depends.
The assurances have had to be heavily qualified, and I will give just two examples. The first is that the important assurance about the freedom to compete for business has been given
subject to the Board's overall financial policies and objectives".
We know that the board has 19 other ports, and it is easy to envisage the board's adopting, voluntarily or otherwise, policies and objectives which could mean that Felixstowe would either stand still or stagnate, or even fade away. That is one reason why the assurances are unsatisfactory.
The second reason is the phrase used by the board to the Committee, which I have not been able to check with the record:
It is the Board's intention to promote the interests of the company's port operation and future development. 
That is not the straight statement one might have expected, such as "The Board will promote ".
We have here the difference between intention and result. As one of the witnesses before the Committee said, it was his intention to take his wife to the theatre that night but it was very unlikely as the debate developed that he would be able to do so.
We all remember our forefathers in Victorian times talking about the road to hell being paved with good intentions, and many people are afraid that the road to the rundown of Felixstowe will be paved with the good intentions of the British Transport Docks Board. This circumlocution,—"it is the Board's intention "—is unnecessary and is seen to be sinister.
To sum up the case, if the alternative were adopted and Felixstowe's future was under European Ferries, the services of the port would remain very efficient and commercially attractive; the pay and conditions of employment and the labour relations at Felixstowe would remain excellent; Felixstowe would keep up vigorous competition with Hull and Southampton; and, with the widest national interest in mind, Felixstowe would keep fully abreast of any international developments in the port world and do everything reasonably possible to prevent this country from becoming an offshore island connected merely by feeder services to and from Rotterdam, Antwerp, Zeebrugge and other rapidly-developing continental ports.
Whichever way one looks at this—from the area interest which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), who is in charge of the Bill, to the narrow constituency interest of assuring a steady income for Trinity College—I hope that the House will decide tonight that there should be no further consideration of this Bill.

Mr. Tom Bradley: I did not intend to intervene in the discussion this evening, since the remarks being made are merely a rehearsal of the speeches made on Second Reading and those which undoubtedly will be made again on Third Reading. Generally speaking, I am not in favour of wholesale repetition.
I am prompted to speak tonight, however, because of the remarks of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane). He was a little unfair about the British


Transport Docks Board's record on industrial relations. He must have forgotten, or been unaware of, the TUC evidence given to the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries in 1972, which testified strongly to the superior industrial relations throughout the board's undertakings compared with non-board ports throughout the rest of the country.
I hope that on reflection the hon. Member for Cambridge will agree that the British Transport Docks Board's ports are long established and have inherited many labour agreements and traditional practices. Inevitably, with rapid technological changes, these have led to some difficulties and tensions. In this respect, the board's ports, such as Southampton and Hull, are no different from the non-board ports, such as London and Liverpool. I think that the hon. Member was unnecessarily harsh about the industrial relations experience of the board.

Mr. Lane: I do not want to prolong this point. The hon. Member has quoted evidence given in 1972—I acknowledge that. I am not making a general attack on the labour relations of the board but it is right to draw attention to particular examples of difficulties which have occurred, even in the weeks since the Second Reading of this Bill, and which are directly relevant to the judgment of whether the takeover will improve labour relations in Felixstowe.

Mr. Bradley: As some of my hon. Friends have said, there is no reason to suppose that when the Felixstowe docks enter into BTDB ownership there will be any sudden, swift, or dramatic deterioration in industrial relations. With Felixstowe becoming a scheme port, the board's experience and understanding of the problems involved can only help in what inevitably will be a difficult situation.

Mr. Fry: Does the hon. Member recall that on Second Reading his hon. Friends raised the subject of labour relations and said that those of European Ferries left a great deal to be desired? We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) circumstances in which there have been difficulties for the board. The best his hon. Friends could come up with on

Second Reading was to say that a strike at European Ferries had been narrowly averted. My hon. Friend made out a stronger case on that score tonight than did Labour Members on Second Reading.

Mr. Bradley: The case against European Ferries is that the firm is a shipping company and has no experience of dealing with dockers on a large scale. The board's past record needs to be seen in the whole context of the ports industry, and in that sense the record is extremely good. Many docks board ports, including those in South Wales, have a record of industrial peace which in most cases has not been bettered. I hope that that disposes of some of the legends perpetuated tonight about industrial relations.

Mr. Stainton: There is clearly an onus upon the promoters and supporters of the Bill to prove that either European Ferries or the present owners were remiss or in default or incapable of properly managing labour affairs and that there is a positive plus with the docks board. Where is that plus?

Mr. Bradley: The whole purpose of the Bill, the genesis of this discussion, arises out of the fact that after considerable expenditure the former private owners of Felixstowe were unable to raise the necessary further capital to develop the port. By a perfectly proper commercial operation the docks board sought and achieved an agreement for the purchase of the dock for £5¼ million. It became a contractually-binding agreement. On Second Reading Conservative Members disputed that, but the fact has now been established beyond peradventure. In Committee, counsel for the board established that it was a binding agreement and he was not challenged by counsel for the petitioners. That point has been laid to rest.

Mr. Stainton: The debate is so curtailed that perhaps I shall be restricted, under protest, to proceed by interventions. There has been reference to what counsel for the promoters, Mr. C. Sparrow, said about this being a binding contract. Who is C. Sparrow and what is his ascendancy in terms of the law or in terms of a decision which may be handed down by the High Court or the House of Lords'? His opinion is rated at zero.

Mr. Bradley: If the hon. Member wishes to challenge the legal credentials of counsel operating in a Private Bill Committee, he had better pursue that elsewhere and not in this Chamber, because I am not competent to deal with his allegations.
9. 15 p. m.
The first item of controversy considered on Second Reading was clarified in the Committee proceedings. A very clear undertaking was given once more in Committee—I say this with great respect to the hon. Member for Cambridge—as it had been given previously, to Trinity College, namely, that the Board would not use Section 15 of the Transport Act 1962, relating to compulsory purchase powers for land, but would come to Parliament for such powers if it required them. It is on record that since its inception the board has never used the compulsory purchase powers contained in the 1962 Act.
The board offered an amendment to Clause 6. This gives statutory force to the intention, explicitly expressed in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1, that future management of the port will be positive and will not be restricted in any way, seeking to curtail the activities of Felixstowe. That amendment was accepted by the Committee.
The other principal event since the Second Reading is that the docks board has published its accounts for 1975, These are not just preliminary accounts. They show a further improvement in the rate of return on assets. The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) may laugh. He may have an opportunity later to challenge the figures. Perhaps in addition to having legal knowledge he has accountancy knowledge, to which we shall all listen and which we shall applaud. A further improvement in the rate of return on assets has been shown on these accounts, despite a general fall in world and United Kingdom trade and pressures stemming from inflation.

Mr. Stainton: On what page is that recorded?

Mr. Bradley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not want me to take him through the accounts as well. It is written in thick black type. The board made a surplus of £12·5 million last year,

which represents an 8 per cent. return on capital. This is the important feature, and it means that the board continues to be self-financing. The cash flow last year was sufficient to meet all the board's cash requirements, including money for capital investment. The cash available for the purchase of Felixstowe Docks, the £5·25 million, will require no borrowing from public funds but will be financed out of the internal resources of the British Transport Docks Board.
These facts themselves rebut the claim made by the Chairman of European Ferries that, compared with his company, the docks board does not offer Felixstowe the same advantages in terms of financial resources, willingness to invest, willingness to take risks, ability to take decisions, and in terms of overall financial competence. The accounts are a direct rebuttal of those assertions.
The case against European Ferries, I suggest, remains—namely, that its main business is that of shipping and not of port ownership and control. It would be a thoroughly bad thing for a single port user to be in control. How would it balance its long-term interests with those of other ports users and employees? The company, as I said earlier, has little or no experience of dealing with Dock Labour Scheme ports. Given that the Felixstowe Dock and Rail Company came to the conclusion that it did not have the cash—perhaps it did not have the inclination, either—to develop the port, it is far too important a national asset to leave in private hands, especially those of a private shipping company. The passage of the Bill will ensure that ownership passes to a responsible and successful public body over which this House will continue to have a measure of control. I therefore invite the House to pass the Bill tonight on consideration.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I shall be brief, because I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to speak.
I hope that if it can agree on nothing else the House can agree on the importance of the Bill to which we are asked to give consideration tonight. This is a Bill not only of local interest to East Anglia, however great it may be, but of interest to the future of this country's most successful port. Felixstowe is a port with an international reputation, as


is shown by the fact that the big three companies in the United States—the United States Lines, Sea-Land Container-ships and America Export Lines—have transferred to Felixstowe although alternatives exist. It is a port with a remarkable record of growth and of excellent labour relations.
We should be in no doubt about the effect of the Bill. It will take Felixstowe out of the private sector and force it into the public sector against the clear wishes of the shareholders, other port users and many of those working at the port. The Bill would vest control with the British Transport Docks Board.
On the last occasion on which we debated Felixstowe the Minister of Transport, who regrettably is not here tonight, made an interesting statement. Referring to the process whereby the British Transport Docks Board was taking over the Felixstowe Company, the Minister said that we were here dealing not with an arranged marriage, but with a "love match". Even the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) looked a little surprised at that description.
To the great stories of romance we have added the saga of Humphrey Brown and Gordon Parker. Doubtless by Third Reading the Minister will have worked himself up into such a state of romantic fervour that they will be portrayed armin-arm sailing into a golden sunset aboard a cross-Channel ferry to Rotterdam. Only the Minister for Transport could come up with such a scenario. It is no surprise that he is not speaking this evening.
Though no one doubts the ardour of the British Transport Docks Board, there is the clearest evidence to show that the board's feelings are totally unrequitted. Gordon Parker is no longer chairman, Felixstowe having been taken over by European Ferries, but to suggest that his dearest wish was to be taken into the publicly-owned ports empire of the British Transport Docks Board is the biggest absurdity, as I am sure the hon. Member for Leicester, East realises.
The fact of the matter is that, contrary to what was said by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch)—again, I regret the hon. Gentleman's absence; having promoted the Bill, he has taken no further

part in the proceedings—Mr. Parker agreed to the take-over when he saw no option for the future of his company. He saw no option, not because of a longing for the British Transport Docks Board but because of the threat to nationalise the port, because the threat introduced a damaging uncertainty about the future at a time when, like most other companies, Felixstowe was hit by the recession.
Mr. Parker's view, expressed time and again, was that he had no option but to accept the offer. In his annual report he said that the reorganisation of the ports created a sense of uncertainty inimical to the interests of the company. In his circular to shareholders, he said:
Since last year your Board has been faced with the prospect of legislation extending the National Dock Labour Scheme to Felixstowe and also of being taken into public ownership in an unspecified way and at an unspecified date. You will know that these are policies of which I disapprove. However, I think that it is important that you realise that unless Felixstowe Dock's future is clarified it is now faced with increasing uncertainty.
Even at that stage, no one with the slightest feeling for the meaning of words would have referred to the proposed takeover as a "love match", but that description became even more bizarre when, two months later, European Ferries made its offer. Today not even the Minister for Transport, who apparently can see touching romance in the unlikeliest of places, can seriously contend that we are dealing with a willing buyer-willing seller situation. That is what is wrong with the Bill and why we should refuse to consider it.
We are being asked to impose our will —the will of this House—to force a marriage which few outside the British Transport Docks Board either want or desire. The overwhelming view of those most closely concerned with Felixstowe is against this merger. They want the company to remain independent and under local management. They reject a future as a publicly-owned port.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at a correctly convened docks conference in 1972 the registered dockworkers at Felixstowe supported the contention that Felixstowe should be a scheme port? Is he also aware that one of the contradictions he is making is that if the


port is left in the hands of private enterprise the possibility of closure takes on flesh?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is totally wrong on the second point and totally out of date on the first. I can give him much more accurate information because I took the trouble to go to Felixstowe a few weeks ago.
We are told that it is wrong for a major user to own the port, yet other port users are in favour of European Ferries' offer. That does not worry them. Their concern is that customers at Felixstowe may be lost.
If there is concern at the thought of a user owning the port, let us look at the example of Larne, which was taken over by European Ferries in 1973. Today, competitors like the Scottish Arm of British Rail's Sealink and a subsidiary of P & O shipping continue to use Larne entirely without discrimination. Since 1973 the labour force in the port has increased by 40 per cent., and the profits have now reached a level double that achieved last year by Southampton, the jewel in the board's crown.
Labour relations at Felixstowe are good. It is right to pay tribute to the work force for its part in the port's success. The local branch of the TGWU has said that it will work with either party, but it is clear that there is no loud call for the board to take over. Indeed, many workers make no secret of the fact that they want the port to remain independent.
What are the arguments used by the board? At least it does not rely on romantic fantasies, as does the Minister for Transport. The board's case is that Felixstowe would complement its operations. The board has 25 per cent. of the market. It wants 30 per cent. It runs 19 ports. It wants 20. On the East Coast, it has Hull, Goole, Immingham, Grimsby, Kings Lynn and Lowestoft. It wants Felixstowe. Clearly it has ambitions, but it cannot be surprised if we are not prepared to see the biggest private enterprise port taken over in this way.
We want to see Felixstowe remain independent and in competition with the board's ports. We want to see the biggest and most successful competitor of the

board remaining in competition and not swallowed up inside a public empire.

Mr. Burden: Would it not be better if Labour Members sometimes explained to the House and the country what benefit we get from nationalisation? Many people are wondering what benefit they derive from the nationalised industries which they are supposed to own.

Mr. Fowler: I entirely take my hon. Friend's points.
Over the last few weeks another argument has been used, if not by the board, at least by those who support its aim. It is said that, if the Felixstowe takeover goes through, the Government will drop their docks nationalisation plan. That has been put to the Investors Chronicle in an attempt to influence the opposition.
I make only two points in reply to that suggestion and to those who seriously harbour such hopes. First, the Minister for Transport specifically rejected that argument on Second Reading. He said:
One essential objective will … be to bring commercially-owned ports into public ownership". —[Official Report, 24th March 1976; Vol. 908, c. 508]
Doubtless if Government policy has changed in that respect the Under-Secretary of State will let us know. That sort of horse-trading argument has no appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends. We reject nationalisation, and we reject the immediate and specific prospect of Felixstowe going into the publicly-owned British Transport Docks Board.
9. 30 p. m.
No one is seeking to establish that the British Transport Docks Board is run by fools. That is not the position. In fact, last week it presented a respectable financial report. It is not my case to knock the board, but what a pity it is that Labour Members do not use the same fairness in dealing with European Ferries. Nothing has been more distasteful during our debates than the attacks that have been made on the company.
European Ferries is 100 per cent. British-owned, 70 per cent. of the issued shares being held by individuals. In the past two years the group's foreign currency earnings have tripled. It has the most modern fleet of cross-Channel


ferries in existence. Since 1963 its market share of the cross-Channel trade has increased from 7 per cent. to over 50 per cent. In other words, the company is well run. It runs at profits sufficient to enable adequate investment to be made over the past two years. In that time it has financed a shipbuilding programme of £50 million. As for the claim that labour relations are bad, that is nonsense. There has never been an official strike at European Ferries. There are at least some Labour Members who do not challenge that.
Perhaps what I have just said does not impress Labour Members, although it should. However, even they might concede that European Ferries has done one thing which deserves their praise—namely, it has created jobs. In 1965 the company employed 300 people. Today its labour force is over 3,500. That is the achievement of European Ferries. It has increased employment over 10 times in 10 years. Even Labour Members might reflect on an achievement of that magnitude in the conditions of today and recognise that it deserves their praise.
There is no reason for the House intervening to prevent European Ferries from taking over Felixstowe. Indeed, there is every reason for that opportunity being given to the company. That is another reason for our refusing to give the Bill consideration.
Finally, we are left with the meagre argument that Felixstowe is a national asset and far too important to remain in private hands. What is this port which is too important to be left in private hands? Perhaps it is a port that has been built up by public subsidy and now faces intervention from a private company which claims the spoils. I doubt whether even the hon. Member for Leicester, East would argue along those lines.
When Gordon Parker took over Felixstowe shortly after the war, it was not much of an asset. It had been neglected during the war. The dock basin was silted up and the piers and equipment were in disrepair. That situation was transformed not by public subsidy but by the private hands about which the hon. Member for Leicester, East complains. It was transformed because one

man backed his judgment with his money and his effort and received the support of those who worked for him. There was a risk, and that risk was taken.
The result has been profits, a worldwide reputation and jobs. In 1951 Parker started work with 12 men. Today the company employs over 1,100 directly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) has said, the total work force involved is over 3,000. It it had not been for private hands, the Felixstowe success would not have taken place. It owes its success to private enterprise, and it is private enterprise which gives Felixstowe the best prospect for the future.
The Bill should be refused consideration. It is not wanted by those who use the port, nor is it in the interests of those who work there. The future of Felixstowe demands that we should reject this takeover.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): The Bill before the House for consideration now is substantially the same as the Bill that was given a Second Reading on 24th March, and I hope that the House will approve it again at this stage.
I apologise to the House for the absence of my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport. It was his intention to intervene in the debate, but from 8. 45 p. m. it has been likely that his presence would be required in Committee on the Finance Bill. He has asked me to apologise to the House.
On Second Reading we gave thorough consideration to the main issues underlying the Bill. The supporters argued that acquisition of Felixstowe by the British Transport Docks Board would be in the best interests of the port and of the wider public interest. They also argued that the House should not seek to overturn the freely negotiated commercial bargain between the BTDB and Felixstowe which the Bill was designed to ratify. I would not wish to weary the House by elaborating those arguments again, but they are equally valid tonight, and I have no hesitation in asking the House to approve the Bill again as it now stands.
The Select Committee has reported in its favour, with one small amendment. I join with other hon. Members in expressing thanks to the Select Committee, and


in particular to its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman), for its work on the Bill.
As I understand it, the petitioners against the Bill were not making general objections to the principle of the Bill, but were seeking assurances about the future of the port of Felixstowe if the BTDB acquires it and about their own position as users of the port, and, in the case of Trinity College, as landowners of some of the area of the port. More generally, the petitioners expressed some concern about the possibility that the BTDB would be becoming too large and exercising something of a monopoly on the East Coast.
There are two answers to these worries. First, at the formal level the BTDB has given a number of assurances about the way in which it intends to operate the port of Felixstowe. It has made it perfectly plain that it intends to maintain and develop the port, and to build on its past successes. It has given undertakings to have every regard to the position of the users of the port, and to the interests of Trinity College. It had already included safeguards on these points in its Bill, and during the Select Committee examination it has expressed itself very content to accept the even more binding commitment to secure the future of the port which is expressed in the amendment which the Committee made.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Why is it that BTDB will not write into the Bill what Trinity College wants so that it is legally protected and will not accept the wording of Trinity College? Why is that not in the Bill?

Mr. Marks: My answer on that question is that the further assurances that the BTDB has given and the amendment that the Select Committee has inserted in the Bill were very largely, as I shall show shortly, unnecessary in view of the Transport Act 1962. However, those assurances have been given, and an amendment has been put in the Bill—perhaps not in the precise form that the petitioners required but in a form that satisfied the Select Committee.
The second and, I would suggest, more significant answer to the worries of the petitioners and the opponents of the Bill lies in the record and proven success of the BTDB. It is blind prejudice to oppose the acquisition of Felixstowe by the BTDB on the grounds of political objections to nationalised bodies of any shape or kind.

Mr. Burden: Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman talks of the "considerable success" of the British Transport Docks Board. Does he not also agree that there has been considerable success on the part of Felixstowe port?

Mr. Marks: Certainly. That has never been denied. What has been suggested is that acquisition by the BTDB would not be good for Felixstowe. We believe that it will.
The fact is that the BTDB has long and successful experience in the management and operation of ports, and its results give me every confidence that it will make a success of Felixstowe as it has of its other undertakings. In this context I note with interest that the chairman of European Ferries has himself said—on television last Friday—that he sees the competition between his company and the BTDB as a straightforward matter of commercial competition, not a matter of ideology. The Government share that view. The important question is skill and effectiveness of management of the port. None of the evidence brought before the Select Committee suggests that European Ferries really has, or indeed would wish to claim for itself, the same breadth and depth of skill in port operating as is offered by the BTDB.
As the chairman of the board has made clear, it is the policy of the board to encourage as much competition as possible between the individual ports under its care within an overall framework laid down at the centre. I believe that in that way it is able to secure some of the commercial discipline associated with competition at the same time as the advantages of an overall strategy and a unified financial base.
In conclusion, I refer again to the work of the Select Committee. It is most useful that the Select Committee has been able to clarify and strengthen the purport of the Bill by the amendment which its deliberations elicited from the docks


board as promoters, and obviously it is right that the binding nature of the agreement between the Felixstowe company and the board should be made apparent, if only to avoid any possible uncertainty.
It is similarly helpful that the Select Committee was in a position to put on record assurances from the promoters to alleviate the concern of Trinity College lest the board's compulsory purchase powers should be exercised against it. There are, of course, major safeguards in the Transport Act to prevent wilful exercise of compulsory purchase powers by nationalised transport industries, and the docks board would not have been able to proceed unfettered against Trinity College even had it wished to do so. Nevertheless, the board's assurance to the Committee represents a more formal reflection of the board's undertakings previously given, and the Government welcome this so far as it may serve to make the Bill more acceptable. to the House.
As for the position of European Ferries as petitioners, it is clearly to the advantage of the House in arriving at a decision that European Ferries should not seem to be at risk in its Felixstowe operations by any possibility of the docks board going back on undertakings contained in the agreement scheduled to the Bill. I would say to the House that in my view such fears were totally groundless and that it is inconceivable that the docks board would have sought to act in this way. Nevertheless, it is no doubt useful that matters have been so clarified.
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), unfairly for him, made reference to industrial relations and quoted industrial disputes. He spoke of one official and one unofficial dispute in two of the 19 ports operated by the British Transport Docks Board. As I pointed out to his hon. Friend, this was not a fair assessment of the industrial relations the board has had throughout a majority of its ports. I myself visited Immingham Docks today where I talked to the shop stewards as well as management, and there was firm evidence that that is a successful dock. The industrial relations were perfectly good.

Mr. Lane: I do not wish to proceed to discuss industrial relations but let me make it quite clear for the record, as the

hon. Gentleman has been giving the House the Government's judgment and advice, that, as I tried to argue earlier, despite what he has said and what the Select Committee were told, Trinity College remains dissatisfied with the assurances it has been given.

Mr. Marks: The House will have to take that. The Select Committee has examined the objections of Trinity College. The precise wording may not be what the college requires, but the House must take its own view.
The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) —

Mr. Peter Rees: rose—

Mr. Marks: I am afraid that I cannot give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman as other hon. Members wish to reply to the debate.
The hon. Member for Harwich mentioned the Bathside Bay scheme. We were geting fairly wide in our consideration of this Bill there. Let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we shall be perfectly prepared to consider further development proposals provided the promoters can produce real evidence of demand backed by an element of guarantee by the prospective users.
Finally, I repeat to the House the Government's reasons for supporting the Bill. First, we believe that the takeover makes sense for both parties and will secure the future development and prosperity of the port of Felixstowe in the most satisfactory way. Secondly, we support the Bill because it accords with our general plans for the reorganisation of the ports industry, one essential objective of which will be to bring commercially-owned ports into public ownership.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Stainton: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me as Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge, wherein lies the port of Felixstowe. I am only distressed that it is at such a late hour that I am able to catch your eye, because it means that my contribution will necessarily be curtailed. My distress is heightened by the fact that the introduction of the Bill came from a Government supporter representing a neighbouring constituency whose familiarity with the port is somewhat minimal. It was


precocious and perhaps even irresponsible of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) to threaten that there was likely to be friction if the Dock Labour Scheme were to be introduced into Felixstowe with European Ferries in charge.
Furthermore, I am far from satisfied about the assertions that we have heard made by Government supporters. Happily and significantly, we did not get these from the Minister. It was asserted, for example, by one Government supporter that a binding contract subsisted. The basis for that assertion seems to lie in the transcript of the proceedings. However, we all know that schedules to Bills are subject to the jurisdiction and pronouncement of our courts, whatever Mr. Sparrow or anyone else may care to give the Committee of scrutiny as his opinion of the situation. I rather prefer the final and absolute decision of the House of Lords in this matter.
To my mind, it is far from clear that the British Transport Docks Board is not acting ultra vires in promoting the Bill. Moreover, one possible interpretation of the amendment to Clause 6—the new subsection (2) making any further alteration subject to the paramountcy of Parliament—may be designed to bring the matter intra vires.
Quite apart from that, there is the question which has not been broached so far—certainly the Minister did not attempt to deal with it—about whether, when we discuss the subsistence of a binding contract. the insertion of Clause 6(2) introduces an amendment of such substantial proportions as to itself to disrupt any purported or suggested contract which might have existed.
We have heard a great deal about the splendid financial performance of the British Transport Docks Board. I have only just received its 1975 report and accounts. I have been overseas attending an IPU meeting for the past two weeks. Not being able to get hold of the secretary of the board, I telephoned the Press officer, who told be that my name was 'on his list, but I had to go to the Vote Office tonight to get a copy of the accounts. As a result, all my figures are based on the 1974 accounts, but I am sure that they make no substantial difference to the points I wish to make.
In interpreting the figures from the British Transport Docks Board, we must pay careful heed to the source and the cost of the finances of this operation. In fact the loan moneys, which all derive from Government sources, are no less than £125 million at the closing of the 1974 accounts. No less than £77 million, or 61½ per cent., is funded by the Government at 3·61 per cent. If one takes from the total loan moneys of the Government to the British Transport Docks Board the loan charges from the profit and loss account, one arrives at an average rate of interest on the total of 5¼ per cent., the total charge on £124½ million being £7 million for the year. One can at least double that, if not more. Straight away there is a subsidy from the taxpayer of at least £7 million a year to the British Transport Docks Board.
I have had certain figures telephoned to me this afternoon on the 1975 results By a curious coincidence, European Ferries, British Rail Sea Services and the British Transport Docks Board all reported their annual results for 1975 last Thursday. European Ferries, with a revenue of £60 million—these figures are all defined on a comparable basis, after all charges but prior to tax—showed a profit of £6 million. British Rail Sea Services, on a £64 million turnover, showed a £5 million loss before interest charges. British Transport Docks Board, with a turnover of £77 million, showed a profit—I am not allowing for all this beneficial interest—of £6 million when the figures are normalised to allow for the inflation accounting procedures which. I understand, have been adopted in the 1975 report and accounts.
If that is anything to shout about, ladies and gentlemen—

Mr. Prescott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stainton: I cannot. I have trespassed somewhat on the courtesy of the House by addressing my hon. and right hon. colleagues as "Ladies and gentlemen". I am so used to talking on this subject to intense, concerned audiences in Felixstowe, who are so utterly opposed to this proposed measure, be they dockers, townspeople or whatever, that obviously I have been carried away by events.
I shall be most distressed and my constituencies will be distressed the more so.
The only ironic advantage which will arise out of the passing of this measure, should it come to be so, will be the enhancement of my own standing, and my own support in my constituency, in support of the Tory Party in opposing this measure.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In commencing my remarks I hope that I shall not have to terminate them in for our five minutes, because I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to speak on the Bill and we have been prevented from doing so for the first hour or more because of the failure of the promoters to make available to the House material which is germaine to this debate. I wish to refer to some of the proceedings of the Committee which were not made available to us until about an hour ago, and only then as a result of a series of points of order and the courteous support of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
The Minister referred to a number of matters which arose in Committee and of which the vast majority of hon. Members have no knowledge. I am one of the fortunate ones who have been able to obtain a transcript. I wish to put to the Minister—I am afraid that it willl not be possible to be brief—some of the points which arose in Committee and which the House has never before had an opportunity to discuss.
I start with the matter of Trinity College, the debate in the Committee and the assurances then given to, and apparently, according to one of my hon. Friends, not accepted by, Trinity College. It was on Wednesday 28th April, with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) in the Chair, that Dr. Bradfield was sworn and examined. He gave evidence at some length and made a number of important points, which the House has had no opportunity to consider and the transcript of which has been denied to hon. Members.
This House is therefore asked tonight to make a decision as to whether the assurances given to Trinity College are adequate, and the vast majority of hon. Members have no way of judging those assurances, because they have been denied this transcript by the promoters.
That is but one point.

Mr. Prescott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Griffiths: Gladly.

Mr. Prescott: I am informed that even if the objectors of Trinity College had wanted to pursue the matter of compulsory purchase, which is the matter of concern to them, they could pursue it under other Transport Act provisions. They could still object to the compulsory purchase, without this Bill, if they desired.

Mr. Griffiths: I am glad to have the hon. Member's assistance. I put a direct question to him. Has he seen the transcript? Has he read the assurances given to Trinity College?

Mr. Prescott: I think that the hon. Member—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer. "] I will answer in my own time. For more than an hour of this debate hon. Members were seeking unsuccessfully to make this point. It was made clear that anyone who wanted the minutes of that Committee and who had the right to ask for them had to make his request earlier. I did not do so and nor did hon. Members opposite. That is why they were denied them.

Mr. Griffiths: I am obliged to the hon. Member. He underlines the point that in the case of Trinity College the vast majority of hon. Members will tonight be deciding upon assurances of which they have no knowledge. The transcript was not available to them.
Trinity College is but one point.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is now apparent that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has not read the transcript of the Committee proceedings and that he has not read Standing Order 131A or "Erskine May". If he had, he would know that it was not necessary to give any notice at all. The Standing Order is absolutely clear—

Mr. Prescott: It was the Chair.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No, the Chair cannot alter Standing Orders. They are mandatory on the House.

Mr. Griffiths: It will be impossible to deal with all the matters arising from Trinity College, but that is only the beginning.
There are in this transcript three separate documents—the first containing 58 pages, the second 49 pages and the third 62 pages. All this material has been denied to the House and there has been no way in which the vast majority of hon. Members—

Mr. Walter Johnson: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Hon. Members: No!

Question put, That the Question be now put: —

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Fry: (seated and covered): On a point of order Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that this was an important debate. It is obvious from the proceedings that few of us have had an opportunity to take part. That was in no way a fault of hon. Members, but that of the promoters of the Bill. Many of my hon. Friends and some hon. Members on the Government side have been prevented from making a contribution.
The purpose of the debate was to consider amendments made in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) was in the middle of making an important statement, but his speech was interrupted because it was 10 o'clock. With respect to you, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we should not end the consideration of the Bill but that we should return to the debate.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) but I have accepted the closure. The House will decide whether the Question is put. I do not decide that.

Mr. Norman Fowler: (seated and covered): On a point of order Mr.

Division No. 145.]
AYES
[10. 0 p. m.


Abse, Leo
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cant, R. B. 


Anderson, Donald
Boardman, H. 
Carmichael, Nell


Archer, Peter
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cartwright, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara


Ashley, Jack
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Clemitson, Ivor


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bradley, Tom
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)


Bagier, Gordon A. T. 
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cohen, Stanley


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Hugh D (Provan)
Coleman, Donald


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Concannon, J. D. 


Bates, Alf
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Bean, R. E. 
Buchan, Norman
Corbett, Robin


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Buchanan, Richard
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)


Bidwell, Sydney
Campbell, Ian
Cronin, John


Bishop, E. S. 
Canavan, Dennis
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Speaker. Only eight hon. Members, including two from the Front Benches, were called during the debate before the closure was put. Hon. Members on both sides, including the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), wished to speak. It is difficult to have a debate in such a curtailed period.

Mr. Speaker: I can only repeat that the House itself will decide whether the time has come for a decision.

Mr. George Cunningham: (Islington, South and Finsbury): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must be seated and covered.

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is within your discretion to determine whether time for debate has been adequate. Will you reconsider your judgment and say that the time has not been adequate?

Mr. George Cunningham: It is the man with the funny hat who decides. This is a serious matter.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) does not behave, I shall have to ask him to leave the Chamber. Courtesy costs nothing to anyone. A Division is under way and the House will decide.

The House having divided: Ayes 265, Noes 255.

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cunningham, Dr J (Whiteh)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Davies, Bryan(Enfield N)
Judd, Frank
Rodgers, George (Chorley) 


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kelley, Richard
Rooker, J. W. 


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roper, John


Deakins, Eric
Kinnock, Neil
Rose, Paul B. 


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lamond, James
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rowlands, Ted


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Leadbitter, Ted
Sandelson, Neville


Dempsey, James
Lee, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Doig, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Selby, Harry


Dormand, J. D. 
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Duffy, A. E. P. 
Lipton, Marcus
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dunn, James A.
Litterick, Tom
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Dunnett, Jack
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Eadie, Alex
Loyden, Eddie
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Edge, Geoff
Luard, Evan
Silverman, Julius


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Skinner, Dennis


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Small, William


English, Michael
McCartney, Hugh
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Ennals, David
McElhone, Frank
Snape, Peter


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Spearing, Nigel


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Spriggs, Leslie


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stallard, A. W.


Faulds, Andrew
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McNamara, Kevin
Stoddart, David


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Madden, Max
Stott, Roger


Flannery, Martin
Magee, Bryan
Strang, Gavin


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mahon, Simon
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Fletcher, Teo (Darlington)
Mellalieu, J. P. W. 
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Swain, Thomas


Forrester, John
Marguand, David
Taylor, Mrs. Ann (Bolton W) 


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Freeson, Reginald
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Meacher, Michael
Tierney, Sydney


George, Bruce
Mendelson, John
Tinn, James


Gilbert, Dr John
Mikardo, Ian
Tomlinson, John


Ginsburg, David
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Tomney, Frank


Golding, John
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Torney, Tom


Gould, Bryan
Molloy, William
Urwin, T. W. 


Gourlay, Harry
Moonman, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Graham, Ted
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris. Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Grocott, Bruce
Moyle, Roland
Ward, Michael


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Watkins, David


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Weetch, Ken


Harper, Joseph
Newens, Stanley
Weitzman, David


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Noble, Mike
Wellbeloved, James


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Oakes, Gordon
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Ogden, Eric
White, James (Pollok)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitlock, William


Heffer, Eric S. 
Orbach, Maurice
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hooley, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Horam. John
Ovenden, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis
Owen, Dr David
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Huckfield, Les
Padley, Walter
Williams, Sir Thomas


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) 


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Park, George
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton) 


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parker, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE) 


Hunter, Adam
Parry, Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Pavitt, Laurie
Woodall, Alec


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Pendry, Tom
Woof, Robert 


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Perry, Ernest
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Young, David (Bolton E)


Janner, Greville
Prescott, John



Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Price, William (Rugby)
TELLER FOR THE AYER:


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Radice, Giles
Mr.Bob Cryer and


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mr.Walter Johnson


John, Brynmor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Baker, Kenneth
Biffen, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Banks, Robert
Biggs-Davison, John


Alison, Michael
Beith, A. J.
Blaker, Peter


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bell, Ronald
Body, Richard


Arnold, Tom
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Benyon, W. 
Bottomley, Peter


Awdry, Daniel
Berry, Hon Anthony
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)







Boyson, Dr Rhodes(Brent)
Havers, Sir Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Bradford, Rev Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Osborn. John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, John (Harrow West)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C. 
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Brotherton, Michael
Heseltine, Michael
Parkinson, Cecil


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hicks, Robert
Penhaligon, David


Bryan, Sir Paul
Higgins, Terence L. 
Percival, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Holland, Philip
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Budgen, Nick
Hordern, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner


Bulmer, Esmond
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Burden, F. A. 
Howell, David (Guildford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Carlisle, Mark
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hunt, John
Raison, Timothy


Channon, Paul
Hurd, Douglas
Rathbone, Tim


Churchill, W. S. 
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clart,Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jessel, Toby
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Clegg, Walter
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Cockcroft, John
Johnston. Russell (Inverness)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Cope, John
Jopling, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Cormack, Patrick
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rifkind, Malcolm


Corrie, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Costain, A. P. 
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Crouch, David
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Crowder, F. P. 
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutstord)
Kirk, Sir Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kitson, Sir Timothy 
Sainsbury, Tim


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Knight, Mrs Jill
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, David
Scott, Nicholas


Drayson, Burnaby
Lamont, Norman
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lane, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Dunlop, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shepherd, Colin


Durant, Tony
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shersby, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Ivan
Silvester, Fred


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawson, Nigel
Sims, Roger


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sinclair, Sir George


Elliott, Sir William
Loyd, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H. 


Emery, Peter
Loveridge, John
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Luce, Richard
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Eyre, Reginald
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Speed, Keith


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McCrindle, Robert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fairgrieve, Russell
McCusker, H.
Sproat, Iain


Farr, John
Macfarlane, Nell
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fell, Anthony
MacGregor, John
Stanley, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Madel, David
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stokes, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marten, Neil
Stradling Thomas, J.


Forman, Nigel
Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mather, Carol
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Fox, Marcus
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Temple-Morris, Peter


Freud, Clement
Mawby, Ray
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fry, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. 
Maythew, Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D.


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Miscampbell, Norman
Tugendhat, Christopher 


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chasham)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Van Straubenzee, W.R.


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Moate, Roger
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Glyn, Dr Alan
Molyneaux, James
Wakeham, John


Goodhew, Victor
Monro, Hector
Walder, David (Clitheroe) 


Goodlad, Alastair
Montgomery, Fergus
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Gorst, John
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Wall, Patrick


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Walters, Dennis


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Morgan, Geraint
Weatherill, Bernard


Gray, Hamish
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Wells, John


Griffiths, Eldon
Morrison, Charles (Devizee)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Grimond, Rt Hon J. 
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Wiggin, Jerry


Grist, Ian
Mudd, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Grylls, Michael
Neave, Airey
Younger, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Hall, Sir John
Nelson, Anthony
Younger, Hon George


Hall-Davis, A. G. F. 
Newton, Tony



Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Normanton, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nott, John
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Harvle Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Michael Roberts.


Hastings, Stephen




Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered. As many as are of that opinion say "Aye".

Hon. Members: Aye

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Division No. 146.
AYES
10.15 p.m


Abse, Leo
Faulds, Andrew
McElhone, Frank


Anderson, Donald
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. 
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Archer, Peter 
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Armstrong, Ernest
Flannery, Martin
Mackenzie, Gregor


Ashley, Jack
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, Kevin


Bagier, Gordon A. T. 
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Madden, Max


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ford, Ben
Magee, Bryan


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon


Bates, Alf
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. 


Bean, R. E. 
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marks, Kenneth


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Bidwell, Sydney
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Bishop, E. S. 
George, Bruce
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gilbert, Dr John
Maynard, Miss Joan


Boardman, H. 
Ginsburg, David
Meacher, Michael


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Golding, John
Mendelson, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Gould, Bryan
Mikardo, Ian


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Bradley, Tom
Graham, Ted
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Molloy, William 


Brown, Hugh D (Provan)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Moonman, Eric


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Buchanan, Richard
Harper, Joseph
Moyle, Roland


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Campbell, Ian
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Canavan, Dennis
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Newens, Stanley


Cant, R. B. 
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Noble, Mike


Carmichael, Neil
Heffer, Eric S. 
Oakes, Gordon


Cartwright, John
Hooley, Frank
Ogden, Eric


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Horam, John
O'Halloran, Michael


Clemitson, Ivor
Howell, Rt Hon Denis
Orbach, Maurice


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Huckfield, Les
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Ovenden, John


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Owen, Dr David


Concannon, J. D. 
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Padley, Walter


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hunter, Adam
Palmer, Arthur


Corbett, Robin
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Park, George


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Parker, John


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Parry, Robert


Cronin, John
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) 
Pavitt, Laurie


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Janner, Greville
Pendry, Tom


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Perry, Ernest


Cunningham, Dr J (Whiteh)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Phipps, Dr Colin


Davidson, Arthur
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Prescott, John


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
John, Brynmor
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Radice, Giles


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Deakins, Eric
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kaufman, Gerald
Robinson, Geoffrey


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Kelley, Richard
Roderick, Gaerwyn 


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rodgers, William (Chorley)


Dempsey, James
Kinnock, Nell
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Doig, Peter
Lamond, James
Rooker, John 


Dormand, J. D. 
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Roper, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Paul B.


Duffy, A. E. P. 
Lee, John
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dunn, James A. 
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Rowlands, Ted


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis. Arthur (Newham N)
Sandelson, Neville


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sedgemore, Brian


Edge, Geoff
Lipton, Marcus
Selby, Harry


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Litterick, Tom
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lomas, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


English, Michael
Loyden, Eddie
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Ennals, David
Luard, Evan
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silkin. Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McCartney, Hugh
Silverman, Julius

Mr. Speaker: The House has decided to put the Question, and I am obliged to do so. To the Contrary?

Hon. Members: No.

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 254.

Skinner, Dennis
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Whitlock, William


Small, William
Tierney, Sydney
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Tinn, James
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Snape, Peter
Tomlinson, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Spearing, Nigel
Tomney, Frank
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Spriggs, Leslie
Torney, Tom
Williams, Sir Thomas


Stallard, A. W. 
Urwin, T. W. 
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Stoddart, David
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Stott, Roger
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Strang, Gavin
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Woodall, Alec


Strauss, Rt Hon G. R. 
Ward, Michael
Woof, Robert


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Watkins, David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Swain, Thomas
Weetch, Ken
Young, David (Bolton E)


Taylor, Mrs. Ann (Bolton W)
Weitzman, David



Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wellbeloved, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
White, Frank R. (Bury)
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Thomas. Ron (Bristol NW)
White, James (Pollok)
Mr. Walter Johnson.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Fairgrieve, Russell
Kirk, Sir Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Farr, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Alison, Michael
Fell, Anthony
Knight, Mrs Jill


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Knox, David


Arnold, Tom
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lamont, Norman


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh, N)
Lane, David


Awdry, Daniel
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Baker, Kenneth
Fookes, Miss Janet
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Banks, Robert
Forman, Nigel
Lawrence, Ivan


Beith, A. J. 
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Lawson, Nigel


Bell, Ronald
Fox, Marcus
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lloyd, Ian


Benyon, W. 
Freud, Clement
Loveridge, John


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fry, Peter
Luce, Richard


Biffen, John
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. 
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Biggs-Davison, John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McCrindle, Robert


Blaker, Peter
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
McCusker, H.


Body, Richard
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Macfarlane, Nell


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
MacGregor, John


Bottomley, Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson M. (Newbury)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes(Rrent)
Goodlad, Alastair
Madel, David


Bradford, Rev Robert
Gorst, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Marten, Neil


Brocklebank-Fowler, C. 
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mates, Michael


Brotherlon, Michael
Gray, Hamish
Mather, Carol


Brown, Sir Edward (Rath)
Griffiths, Eldon
Maude, Angus


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grimond, Rt Hon J. 
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Grist, Ian
Mawby, Ray


Budgen, Nick
Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bulmer, Esmond
Hall, Sir John
Mayhew, Patrick


Burden, F. A. 
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. 
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miscampbell, Norman


Carlisle, Mark
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Moate, Roger


Channon, Paul
Hastings, Stephen
Molyneaux, James


Churchill, W. S. 
Havers, Sir Michael
Monro, Hector


Clark,Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hawkins, Paul
Montgomery, Fergus


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hayhoe, Barney
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Clegg, Walter
Heseltine, Michael
Morgan, Geraint


Cockcroft, John
Hicks, Robert
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cope, John
Holland, Philip
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Cormack, Patrick
Hordern, Peter
Mudd, David


Corrie, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Neave, Airey


Costain, A. P. 
Howell, David (Guildford)
Nelson, Anthony


Crouch, David
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Newton, Tony


Crowder, F. P. 
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Normanton, Tom


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hunt, John
Nott, John


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hurd, Douglas
Onslow, Cranley


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Osborn, John


Drayson, Burnaby
Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Page, John (Harrow West)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jessel, Toby
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Dunlop, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Parkinson, Cecil


Durant, Tony
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Penhaligon, David


Dykes, Hugh
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Percival, Ian


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Jopling, Michael
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pink, R. Bonner


Elliott, Sir William
Kershaw, Anthony
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Emery, Peter
Kimball, Marcus
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Eyre, Reginald
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Fairbairn, Nicholas
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis







Raison, Timothy
Shersby, Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Rathbone, Tim
Silvester, Fred
Townsend, Cyril D. 


Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Sims, Roger
Trotter, Neville


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Sinclair, Sir George
Tugendhat, Christopher


Rees-Davies, W. R. 
Skeet, T. H. H. 
van Straubenzee, W. R. 


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Wakeham, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Speed, Keith
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Ridsdale, Julian
Sproat, Iain
Wall, Patrick


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walters, Dennis


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Stanley, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wells, John


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Ross, William (Londonderry)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wiggin, Jerry


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stokes, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Sainsbury, Tim
Stradling Thomas, J. 
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tapsell, Peter
Younger, Hon George


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)



Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Temple Morris, Peter
Mr. Spencer Le Merchant and


Shepherd, Colin
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Mr. Michael Roberts. 


Question accordingly agreed to.


Bill, as amended, considered accordingly; to be read the Third time.

PRICE CODE

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention, for the record, to the fact that, following the proceedings earlier this evening, there can be no doubt that there has been a breach of Standing Order 145 concerning Private Business.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now dealing with the Price Code, and therefore this has nothing to do with the debate before the House. Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no point of order. Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I started to raise with Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is this a matter relating to the Price Code?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is a matter which I started to raise with Mr. Speaker, but he motioned to me to put my point of order as soon as the Division was over as he was bound at that moment to put the Question. Therefore, I am following the advice of Mr. Speaker in putting it to you now, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Standing Order 145 is absolutely clear, and it comprises only three lines. It says:
The minutes of the proceedings of a committee on a private bill shall be brought up and laid on the Table of the House with the report of the bill. 
That could not be more clear. It is also a fact that there has been no such copy on the Table of the House during the proceedings.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This cannot be part of the present debate. Mr. Fraser.

Mr. John Peyton: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like very much to understand your ruling at a rather difficult stage of

our proceedings. Are you in fact saying that no point of order could possibly arise which was not directly concerned with the business which the House is now to embark upon? If you are, this would seem to me, with great respect, to be a very novel ruling indeed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is taking time out of the debate. I am bound by the Standing Order which was passed by the House concerning when debates are to take place. The debate on which this matter is relevant concluded at 10 o'clock under the Standing Order of the House. I am the servant of the House, and I must now move on to the next debate. If there is a matter which can arise out of what happened, it should not arise now but should be taken at some other time.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The normal procedure is for a matter to be raised with the Chair on the first possible occasion. Mr. Speaker did not want to entertain this point at the moment when I raised it, because he was in process of putting the Question, and he indicated that I should raise the point of order when the proceedings on which he was engaged, and on which you replaced him in the process, had finished. I rose immediately so to do.
This is the first occasion on which it is possible to raise with you the fact that Standing Order 145 on Private Business has been breached by the absence from the Table of the minutes of the proceedings of the Committee. I want to put on record without any doubt that the earlier proceedings were in breach of Standing Order 145 and were, therefore, invalid.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are on a debate dealing with the Price Code. I counsel the hon. Gentleman to raise this matter after Question Time tomorrow, which will be the first suitable occasion. Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: (Bury St. Edmonds): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like further guidance on your interpretation of the rules of order of the House. I understand you to have said that the immediate business, which we have not embarked upon but which we are about to embark


upon, shall take precedence over any matters of order of this House. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said, this is certainly a novel ruling, because I had always understood that matters concerning the proper procedure and order of the House took precedence over any particular timetable or business with which we might be dealing. I put it to you that we must first get clear the proper management of the business of the House and only then come to the matter that is to be debated. I should he obliged for your ruling on that matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are now on a debate on the Counter-Inflation (Price Code) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order. I have called Mr. Fraser, and in a moment I shall call him again. The right time to raise this matter would be after Question Time tomorrow.

Mr. Peyton: On that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. First, I think we would be glad to accept your advice that the proper time to raise the matter would be after Question Time tomorrow. At the same time, I suggest that it is open to doubt whether the time taken on this short discussion of a matter which arose from what Mr. Speaker said should be taken from the time for the debate on the Price Code Order which is to follow. With respect I hope that you will reconsider the ruling you have just given at a difficult moment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The duration of this debate started from the moment when I called the first speaker, Mr. Fraser, who has not made much progress so far. Therefore, perhaps he may start now.

10.34 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): I beg to move,
That the Counter-Inflation (Price Code) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 630), a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.
This is a small and, I hope, uncontentious Order. Its effect is to amend the Price Code provisions which back up the voluntary Price Check Scheme so that they take account of the recent Budget tax changes. If I may summarise it in a sentence, it means that the Budget tax

changes will not be counted when one calculates whether Price Check prices have been kept within the agreed limits of 5 per cent. There are technical reasons why this is essential for the firms concerned which I shall try to explain. The Price Check Scheme is entirely voluntary and I thank all those manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers who have agreed to come into it. The essence of the scheme is that for those goods and services within it there should be no price rise beyond 5 per cent. between February and August this year. All the indications we have are that price increases for goods in the scheme will be well within that margin.
The battle against inflation is being won, and the scheme is a visible demonstration of this. It covers 15 to 20 per cent. of consumers' expenditure, and what has been heartening is the extent to which some retailers have been willing to bring extra items from their own ranges into the scheme. When the scheme was launched, there was a safeguard allowing items to be withdrawn if there were significant unexpected costs increases which made it absolutely impossible for them to keep within the scheme.
In his Budget speech, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a number of changes in indirect tax rates last month, which could not have been anticipated in February. These changes included reductions and increases. The higher rate of VAT was cut from 25 per cent. to 12½ per cent., which means substantial price reductions on such items as electric kettles, washing machines and television sets. For the rest, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
the yield of income tax rises with rising earnings while the yield of the specific duties is not linked to the inflation rate. In addition, increased revenue in these areas will help make room for the socially desirable expenditure I shall be describing. 
Dealing with income tax reliefs, my hon. Friend went on to say:
The revenue from the increased duties on alcoholic drink, tobacco and petrol will broadly cover the cost of the unconditional £370 million which is concentrated on the old and children. I believe that the House will feel that this reflects the right social priorities."— [Official Report, 6th April 1976; Vol. 909, c. 258–77.]
The new tax rates on drink and petrol became effective almost immediately. The new rates on tobacco came into effect


on 10th May. Beer went up by around a penny a pint immediately after the Budget. As for petrol, the price effects of the new hydrocarbon oil duty combined with the VAT reduction have been variable because of the intensely competitive situation in the petrol retail market at present and because of the withdrawal by the big oil companies of their special schemes of dealer support.
With the increases in specific duty which have led to decreases and reliefs elsewhere, it is important that any additional price increases which may come on top of these tax-based increases should be kept to the absolute minimum. Price restraint on the part of the manufacturers remains just as important as it was when the Price Check Scheme was launched. The brewers and the tobacco manufacturers told the Department immediately after the Budget that they were prepared to stay in the Price Check Scheme despite the increases in excise duty, and we very much welcome that decision.
Although it is an entirely voluntary arrangement, the scheme is backed up in the Price Code, so that firms which can do so are allowed to make up for restraint on Price Check goods by averaging out prices and taking rather more on something else. I emphasise "can" because it is only an ability to do this. The number of firms that have actually applied to the Price Commission to use this facility is very small. All that the Order does is allow scheme members to disregard the Budget duty increases in calculating whether they have kept within the 5 per cent. limit. The effect of the Order is to preserve their right to recoup costs on other items.
The Price Check Scheme was criticised at the beginning and was knocked to some extent, but it is going well. It has been operating since February and it has another three months to go. The Price Commission has been monitoring the effects, and the first indication we have received from it as a result of its monitoring is that the scheme is working successfully. The Order will facilitate continued compliance by manufacturers who are affected by the Budget tax changes.
I hope that with this explanation the House will be pleased to approve the Order.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Norman Lamont: The purpose of the Order, as the Minister has said, is to allow the tax changes consequential upon the Budget not to be included in the price increases that go through to the consumer under the Price Check Scheme.
Before I turn to my main point, I shall put a detailed question to the Minister. As I understand him, the increases in excise duties and indirect taxes are not to be counted as part of the price increase for the purposes of the Price Check Scheme, but I am a little puzzled as to what will happen about the cost of financing payments of duty allowed under the Price Code.
As the Minister will be aware, wholesalers have to make payments of duty in advance when stock—for example, spirits—comes out of bonding. My information is that no part of the cost of financing the payment of duties—and the payment has to be made in advance—is allowable under the Price Code in respect of gross and net profit margins. The Minister emphasised that cross-subsidisation was to continue under the Order despite the increase in taxes. That is what one would expect.
But the point should be made that cross-subsidisation is forbidden under the Price Code. That fact that it was allowed under the Price Check Scheme is something that I have regarded with a certain amount of suspicion, as it appears a little like the beginning of cartelisation. It appeared that the Price Code was being dismembered up to a point in favour of a few producers whom the Government favoured.
The Minister's main point is a simple one—namely, that where taxes have increased, that will not count towards the 5 per cent., which is the limitation that the Price Check Scheme has imposed on the retail price so as to protect the consumer. I imagine that many consumers, including, perhaps, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have forgotten what the Price Check Scheme is. That is hardly surprising as we have heard so little of it and as it has had such little effect.
When the scheme was first put forward we were criticised for calling it a cosmetic. We called it that because we strongly suspected—this had been borne out by the discussions we had had with individuals involved in the negotiations with the Government—that many of the goods that the Government had selected to put in the scheme would not have gone up by 5 per cent. anyway.
But it has now been revealed that the scheme is not even a cosmetic. When we referred to it in those terms it never occurred to us that the Government would come along and drive a coach and horses through the scheme. We could not have realised that the Government would increase the prices of goods in the shops that were meant to be restricted to a limitation of 5 per cent. over six months.
The first step was to increase the duty on cigarettes. That represented on average an increase of over 6 per cent. That seemes to be outside the 5 per cent.limitation imposed by the scheme. Then we had the increase on beer. That put up the price by very nearly 5 per cent. and we all know that rounding up is allowed under the Price Code.
Then we had the increase on cider. I notice that the Minister did not mention that, and it does not seem to have been mentioned in any of the handouts. Excise duty, for the first time, has been extended to cider, and 3p is the sort of price increase that has been put on a pint of cider, as compared with 1p on a pint of beer. That puts up the price of cider by about 20 per cent.
Those, therefore, are the increases that the Government have brought about themselves—about 5 per cent. on beer, over 6 per cent. in cigarettes, and 20 per cent. on cider. That increase is quite separate from and additional to the 5 per cent. increase that might just occur through the normal increase in costs for which the Government had provided and expected and allowed for under the scheme, so one could easily say that under the scheme the price of beer might rise by 10 per cent., cigarettes by 11 per cent. or 12 per cent., and cider by 25 per cent.
That all adds up to a very considerable amount, and it means that a considerable part of the scheme has now been invalidated. When one takes account of other increases that have occurred, one sees. for example, that there has been an

increase in the price of bread. We have seen the cost of the standard loaf rise from 17p to 18p.
For some reason that I have never been able to understand, the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection keeps saying that this is not an increase that goes outside the scheme and that rounding up is allowed. I cannot understand the Department's arithmetic. Perhaps the Minister will explain it to me. By my method of arithmetic, simple as it is, 1p on a 17p loaf is an increase of 5·88 per cent. That is more than 5 per cent., and allowing for rounding up, is 6 per cent. Therefore, I do not see how the Government can maintain that the price of bread and the way in which this increase comes about can be within the scheme.

Mr. John Fraser: It is within the scheme because the scheme is precisely defined as allowing for that kind of increase. If the hon. Gentleman wants to check it, the best thing to do is to read the Order amending the Price Code which set up the Price Check Scheme. He will see that it comes exactly within the wording of the Order.

Mr. Lamont: I always thought that the object of the exercise was to restrain price rises to 5 per cent. over a six-month period. I had not expected that there was a whole lot of small print. Neither do I believe that that is what was understood by people who saw advertisements on television and in newspapers, and who are paying the bill of £1 million over six months. Taking bread, cigarettes, beer and cider, this adds up to half the expenditure covered under the price restraint scheme.
Of course, we know that the scheme that has been actually produced is a very small mouse. Originally it was thought that there might be 80 different product categories, and that it might cover a substantial part of consumer expenditure. However, in the end the Government had to settle for something between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. of consumer expenditure.
The fact remains, however, that of that part of consumer expenditure that theoretically is meant to be covered by the scheme, bread, cigarettes, beer and cider account for about half, so half of the value of the scheme has already gone.
Given that this is expensive and that we have to pay for these advertisements, would it not be better if we ditched the whole thing now that it has proved so useless?
The Minister says that if one studies the matter carefully one will see that this was all allowed for. He did not explain precisely what he meant by that. However, if it was really intended that tax increases should be allowed for in addition to the 5 per cent. price increases, why was that not specified in the advertisements on television and in newspapers? The advertisements did not say "A 5 per cent. increase is the maximum that you will have to pay in the next six months on top of Government-caused increases".
If it was expected that what we are now having to put up with was a likely possibility, why was the Price Code not amended in the first place? Why does the Minister have to come to the House after the Budget to amend the Price Code? I am firmly convinced that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no idea that the Price Check Scheme existed. It did not enter his head. He did not know that it played any part in the counter-inflation strategy.
I would remind the Minister of State of what the Chancellor said in the Budget debate. If there is any doubt, he can send for the Hansard containing the speech. I remember clearly what the Chancellor said when he announced the increase on cigarettes. He said he had few regrets about putting up the tax on cigarettes because there were substantial social and health reasons for making them more expensive.
That may be so, but if he thought that there were sound reasons for putting up the price, what was the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection doing trying to keep them down? Did not the Chancellor talk to her? Did she not publish advertisements saying their prices were to be kept down and price increases on them restricted to 5 per cent? That is why I do not believe that this Order is other than a document got together in haste, scrambled together because the Chancellor overruled the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection and is oblivious of what she was trying to do.
From the beginning we have made clear that we regard the scheme as an entirely worthless exercise, although expensive for the public. The fact that the Minister has to come without a rational explanation shows how right we were.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body: I support every word spoken by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont) but I seek to raise a further matter.
I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you have read the document we are meant to be discussing, but it may be that you turned to the back page and read the explanatory note, hoping to understand it straight away and to grasp sufficient of the meaning not to make it necessary to probe the document itself. If you did, you can be sure you could not understand it, any more than I or anyone else could. I protest to the Minister of State about the way the document has been phrased. He must know that there are broadly two categories of people who have to read these documents and appreciate them.
They are large companies which are able to employ solicitors and perhaps accountants. They are able to digest this kind of jargon and are sufficiently familiar with previous Orders and the jargon of White Papers and the rest to understand what it is about. These companies can have the advantage of their advice and will act accordingly.
The Minister must know as well as I do, and, indeed, he knows better than I, that thousands of retailers and small business men on their own may have copies of this document and have to try to understand it. If they turn to the explanatory note they will not understand it.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Will the hon. Member forgive me for inquiring whether he or his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont) is suggesting that these firms, which in good faith entered into an understanding with the Government about the 5 per cent. increase, should be expected to bear the increase of cost to take them above 5 per cent., or that the allowance should be given? I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would be glad that


the Government were allowing this flexibility and allowing the hon. Member's friends to enjoy this flexibility, rather than croaking and screaming about it. It is perfectly reasonable and rational and hon. Members are wasting our time.

Mr. Body: The hon. Member is canvassing a view which is alien to my theme. I thought he would have sympathy with small business men. How many could understand this Order? Can he hazard a guess? Is it fair to expect his constituents or mine to try to understand this kind of language? If we are to have these schemes, half-baked though they may be, at least those trying to comply with the law and to fit in with them ought to be treated with some consideration, if not courtesy.

Mr. Mike Thomas: I could not count the number of small shopkeepers in my constituency, with many of whom I am in regular contact, but I know that if the Government had not decided to make this amendment to the Price Code, they would all have contacted me asking why they should have to bear the brunt of the tax increases in the Budget and why the Price Code should not be amended.

Mr. Body: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make his own speech in due course. If he does, we shall listen to his defence of this nonsense with interest. Meanwhile, I throw out a challenge to him. Perhaps he would care to take a handful of these Orders to show to his constituents with whom he is in such close contact and invite them to say whether they understand the language.
If we are to have these schemes, those trying to comply with them and to support the Government should at least be given a document which they can understand —[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman giggles. I do not think that his shopkeeper constituents would giggle if he invited them to say whether they understand this explanatory note. Perhaps he has not yet read it—

Mr. Mike Thomas: I was touched by the hon. Gentleman's desire to support the Government. I find that endearing.

Mr. Body: Far be it from me to support any price and incomes policy. I can well remember opposing the policy of the previous Government, and I think as ill of the present one. Indeed, this is

an even bigger nonsense than the previous one
This explanatory note is an insult to the retailers and others who have to digest it and try to comply with it. I hope that, hence forth, those entrusted with the task of drafting similar documents will have more consideration for those who have to read them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames used robust words to describe the way that this matter had been handled, and he urged the Government to ditch the whole scheme. That is admirable advice. I hope that the Minister will heed it and ditch the scheme before it collapses. He must realise that it will collapse and that, with its collapse, there will be a great deal of odium.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Dodsworth: I wish to support the comments of my hon. Friends on the ramshackle form of this price control mechanism—this inadequate piece of legislation which has to be added to on an ad hoc basis from time to time.
It seems to me that the state of our economy reflects our position in the world. We are on the side of world events. As a nation which imports a vast proportion of our requirements, especially those commodities affected by the Price Code, we are the victims of world trade events. The mechanism which the Government utilise merely seeks to represent to the public at large that they are actively doing something about something they cannot control. They hope to take the credit, at some future unforeseen time, for any reductions which result from actions in which they have had no part at all.
That, I believe, is what was referred to as "cosmetic". However, I would regard it as "phoney". It is misleading the public to suggest that this Government have taken any realistic action at all. I would go further than that.
It seems to me that the Price Check Scheme is positively misleading in the representation it makes to the public. The public have not had the benefit or had the opportunity of reading the detailed Orders, the amendment Orders or the fine print, on the back pages, as have my hon. Friends. The public believe that all the goods contained in the shop


with the Price Check Scheme symbol on the door have some sort of control or check on them. They do not realise that the Government operate their method of knowing what is best for us and it is they who decide which goods shall be protected.
The public are under the mistaken apprehension that all the goods on sale are likely to be under some form of the Price Check Scheme. That is the interpretation which logically follows from seeing that symbol at the entrance to a particular store.
So, on two counts, this is a phoney scheme. It is phoney in its actual strategy and because it only responds to events and controls not at all. Secondly, it is positively misleading. For these reasons I support my hon. Friends.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: I shall first attempt to answer some of the specific points put to me by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont). He asked me about the cost of financing duty payments made in advance. For Price Check Scheme purposes, I am told, firms will not be able to offset financing charges against the 5 per cent. voluntary limit on price increases.
This Order deals only with the cash amount of duty. Under the Price Code generally direct financing costs, for instance, interest on duty paid, may be taken into account in the allowable costs for profit margin calculations.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the price of bread. Perhaps I may draw his attention to the debate on an Order, in which he took part earlier this year, dealing with the increases relating to a part of a penny. That Order said:
Where an increase to be made in any price under this head is less than a whole number of pence the increased price may be rounded up to the nearest halfpenny. 
The increase to the nearest 5 per cent. would have involved bread going up by 0·7p or 0·8p and it is simply not possible to raise bread prices by that amount. Therefore, the increase was rounded up to the nearest penny, which took it marginally above the 5 per cent., but it was always expected that that sort of rounding up would take place. I do not

think the hon. Gentleman can take any great credit for trying to devalue the Price Check Scheme with that sort of carping criticism.
When the hon. Gentleman mentioned cider he excelled himself. I must advise him that the price increases do not come into effect until the autumn, so there has been no increase as a consequence of the Budget. For cider firms, this Order is unnecessary.
The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) criticised the explanatory note. I have always been extremely careful that explanatory notes should be as clear and comprehensible as possible. Every Government owe it, not only to hon. Members, but to the public, to keep their explanatory notes simple while giving a fairly clear and easy explanation to a member of the public. The hon. Member underrates his shopkeepers and the public. I have looked again at the explanatory note. I find it reasonably easy to understand and I am sure that most other people will do so.
I have dealt with the specific points raised. On the general comments on the Price Check Scheme, when I hear hon. Members castigating it in words like "Ditch the whole thing as useless" and "It is a worthless exercise", I am reminded of the saying of Rochefoucauld, that the misfortunes of others are never entirely unpleasant. Any change in the code or any difficulty with the Price Check Scheme, if one can describe those as misfortunes, is never entirely unpleasant to Conservative Members. Some people—not all—appear to have been investing a good deal of capital in the failure of anti-inflation policies. They will be pleased to attack the policy and to demonstrate that something is not working.

Mr. Dodsworth: Would the Minister specify exactly who "some people" are and the matters he refers to, rather than resort to generalities?

Mr. Fraser: I gave two quotations. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames said, "The Government want to ditch the whole thing as useless". He then went on to describe it as "a useless exercise". It is in the recollection of the House that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth)


himself castigated the scheme in similar terms.
I think that the country as a whole is bent on beating the scourge of inflation. It welcomes a scheme like the Price Check Scheme, which plays an important part in keeping down the cost of what is 15 to 20 per cent. —

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: It is not.

Mr. Fraser: Does the hon. Lady wish to intervene?

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I had not intended to intervene, but the Minister provokes me. How can he say that 15 to 20 per cent. of family expenditure is involved, when, for whatever reason—be it Excise duty or anything else—goods comprising half that 15 to 20 per cent. of family expenditure have gone up by more than 5 per cent.?

Mr. Fraser: The point is that one is asking retailers, wholesalers and manufacturers to remain within a scheme in which they restrain price increases on account of manufacturing and distribution costs within the 5 per cent. limit
It is a curious thing, but if the original Price Code had been drafted a little more widely, this Order would not have been necessary. Paragraph 28(4) of the 1974 code said:
VAT is not regarded as part of the price for calculating prices and price increases for manufacturing and service enterprises, and this paragraph does not affect the treatment of VAT for this purpose. 
If the definition of VAT had been extended to include Budget duty increases, the Order would not have been necessary.
The Price Check Scheme covers 15 to 20 per cent. of expenditure. It is true that some items in that scheme have been increased by Budget duty and that some have been reduced by the lowering of the top VAT rate from 25 to 12½ per cent.

Mr. Norman Lamont: The Minister has explained the position of cider and the fact that the duty will not become effective until the autumn, but does he think that it is honest to advertise cider as being restrained to an increase of 5 per cent. for six months and then a month or two months later to put up the the

price by 20 per cent.? What is the price restraint in that? Second, even if the scheme applies, as he said, to 15 to 20 per cent. of consumer expenditure, is it not true that the increases in the price of bread, beer and cigarettes account for half of the amount covered by the scheme already and that they are rising by roughly 5 per cent.?

Mr. Fraser: With the duty, the increase in the price of beer, cigarettes and bread is in the range of 5 per cent.
I was asked whether it was dishonest to advertise these products as being within the Price Check Scheme, but they are within the scheme. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames must try to see certain Budget duty increases within the context of the total battle against inflation. The Budget increases have been made to pay for income tax reliefs for old people and children. They are part of the rounded package to deal with inflation. That battle is being won and the Price Check Scheme is a contribution to winning that battle.
The general range of increases, apart from rising duty, have been far less than 5 per cent. The number of applications made to the Price Commission for cross-subsidies have been small and the scheme is therefore successful. Opposition Members might give credit to the Government—and not just the Government which perhaps should not claim the credit—but the manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, tobacco manufacturers and brewers who wish to remain inside the scheme to demonstrate their desire, with other sections of the community, to restrain prices and control inflation.

Question put and agreed to

Resolved,
That the Counter-Inflation (Price Code) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1976 (S. I., 1976, No. 630), a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (OPEN UNIVERSITY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Harper.]

11.12 p.m.

Mr. McCusker: I am at a loss to know to whom I should address my remarks, as the Minister I thought was responsible for answering this debate does not appear to be on the Government Front Bench. I see, however, that another Minister is present.
A few weeks ago the second graduation ceremony for students of the Open University in Northern Ireland took place in Belfast. Of the 192 graduates, 18 were honours graduates, three were first-class graduates and 12 had upper second-class honours. That represents a higher success rate than in many other parts of the United Kingdom, but it is partially explained by the fact that about 50 per cent. of the graduates were teachers—a significant number.
At virtually the same time as that graduation ceremony the education authorities in Northern Ireland were making a decision which caused Mr. Rex O'Hare, the National Secretary of the Open University Students' Association, to state:
If they press on with this policy it will amount to a near amputation of Northern Ireland from the Open University. If they are not persuaded to change their minds, it will amount to a serious act of educational discrimination. 
Mr. O'Hare is not a Northern Ireland politician with a vested interest in making such a comment. He used colourful and emotive language because he was concerned with the decision. Less dramatic but just as effective was Mr. D. E. McIntyre, the Regional Director of the Open University in Northern Ireland, who said:
Over 800 students in the province are currently taking courses which include a summer school commitment. The effects on students in Northern Ireland could obviously be very serious. 
The decision, which precipitated those comments and which caused great dismay to Open University students in Northern Ireland, was taken by the Northern Ireland Area Education and Library Boards. In effect, it means that

assistance for travel expenses to summer schools is withdrawn, sponsorship to summer schools is restricted to one, and that no assistance will be given to any new student who has already received financial assistance from public funds for a post A-level course.
This refers back to my comment about the number of graduates being teachers. Obviously, the person who suffers most by that ruling will be the Northern Ireland teacher who is already in receipt of assistance from public funds for his teacher-training course and will receive no assistance if this policy is implemented.
Before this decision, sponsorship from Northern Ireland was on a par with the average for the rest of the United Kingdom. It took the form of discretionary grants, and it was agreed by the area boards that they would pay the costs of travel and the summer school fees. In most cases this would have ranged between £50 and £100, depending on individual circumstances, and probably would have amounted to half the total cost of the course, the student bearing the remaining expenditure on the actual course fees, the set books and other miscellaneous travel and stationery expenses. That could have been described as a fairly equitable arrangement, a 50–50 split of the cost of the course.
The reason given by the five area boards for their decision is obviously that the economic situation necessitates that they make expenditure cuts. By this miserly and potentially damaging decision they hope to save about £25,000—£5,000 per board—so small an amount that it was not even necessary, apparently, to refer it to a meeting of board members. I find it particularly ironic that in the week we are debating this issue we should have before us an Education and Library Boards (Payment to Board Members) Regulation which introduces for the first time a financial loss allowance for board members engaged on certain duties.
As the Minister knows as well as I do, we are told that the members of these boards are public-spirited citizens. They do not have to face the rigours of election to office. I cannot help thinking that if they want to encourage others to make expenditure cuts, they should take a dose of their own medicine. If they were to cut back on their own expenses


and the expenses associated with conferences and other activities in which they engage, they would probably save substantially more than the £25,000 they hope to save by this decision.
Open University students have already this year accepted a 60 per cent. increase in their course fees. A student taking a single credit course is faced with a charge of £70 compared with the 1975 charge of £25. These figures are based on the rather unambitious student who has decided to take only one credit per year. I am led to believe that most of the students in Northern Ireland take more than one credit per year, so one should perhaps double those figures. A teacher registering for the first time in 1976 can expect to pay a minimum of £119. If he decides to take two credits he could face paying about £250.
We know that every Open University student gives up 15 to 20 hours of his leisure time each week to study. He uses his annual holidays for attendance at summer school. He relinquishes essential time with his family and friends, and he may forgo the opportunity for overtime earnings. On top of that, the Northern Ireland student has to cope with the day-to-day problems and frustrations of living in the Province. These should not be under-estimated.
The education boards should not be seeking further to isolate and disadvantage Northern Ireland students compared with those on the mainland. They should be offering positive encouragement. After all, if 50 per cent. of the graduates are teachers, the boards are receiving free in-course training for their staff. We should be keen to send students to summer schools from Northern Ireland, if only to show the other face of the Province to associates in the Open University.
I know that the Minister and his colleagues are tired of answering allegations about withdrawal from Northern Ireland, whether those allegations are of military, economic or industrial withdrawal. Here is an opportunity to nail that lie. The threat of educational isolation springs from ill-considered acts of the Northern Ireland people themselves, and the Minister now has an opportunity to put them back on the rails.
I know that these grants are discretionary, and not a Ministry decision, but some co-ordination is necessary among the five boards. Can the Minister tell us whether this decision had the approval or sanction of Ministry officials? I know that a nod is as good as a wink, and if the Minister declared himself tonight, his voice would be listened to.
The sum of £25,000 is paltry to area educational and library boards, and this is a hollow gesture at cutting expenditure. But it represents a heavy burden on individual students who are struggling in a difficult economic situation.
The introduction to the Open University says:
the Open University is open to all.
If these decisions of the area boards are carried through, that could be changed to read "open to all who can afford it", as far as Northern Ireland is concerned.

11.22 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle): The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), in raising this matter for debate tonight, has chosen a subject which has aroused considerable interest in Northern Ireland. I congratulate him on raising a matter which is not part of the security situation, thus indicating that there is a life in the Province which is not part of that situation. I welcome the opportunity to clarify the position.
Before dealing with the main issue he has raised, I shall take the opportunity to speak in general terms about the Open University and the tremendous success it has had in evoking interest in Northern Ireland. The participation rate—if one estimates that Northern Ireland has 3 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom—measured in terms of students who have graduated from the Open University, forms about 4 per cent. of the total in each of the last four years. That is quite a significant advance on Northern Ireland's just numerical proportion.
The Department of Education for Northern Ireland contributes, through the Department of Education and Science, to the recurrent costs of the Open University to the extent of £445,000 a year. That was the figure for the 1975–76 financial year, which has just ended, and there


are no plans to change that sort of support. The Open University is recognised in Northern Ireland as a very valuable element in the Province's further and higher educational system. It is against this background of a consciousness of provincial pride that I wish to reply to the points the hon. Member has made.
I should explain that awards in respect of the Open University courses are not made by my Department. They are made by the Education and Library Boards which were established under the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 These boards are responsible for the local administration of education in Northern Ireland. The authority for education boards to make awards is given by the Students Awards Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1975. Although the boards make the awards, the value of the awards is subject to the approval of the Department of Education and this is granted under the terms of the regulations which I have mentioned.
The general practice in Northern Ireland hitherto is for the Open University courses to cover the cost of a summer school fee, plus travelling costs to and from the summer school. Four of the five boards confined the award to the cost of one summer school. The fifth was more generous and did not impose that limitation. No regard was had to the students' means in granting the award.
The education and library boards in Northern Ireland, in common with education authorities in the rest of the United Kingdom, have been affected by the restraint necessary in public expenditure in response to the national economic situation. In these circumstances, many desirable educational activities have had to be curtailed, and clearly priority in expenditure has had to be given to compulsory schooling. This is, after all, the basic education service and it must be protected.
Discretionary awards and awards to Open University students fall within this category and are one of the areas where the boards have had to look for savings in the current situation. Against that background the executive committee of the Association of Area Boards, following the report of the working party of its scholarship officers, recommended the following arrangements to apply this

summer: first, the fees for only one summer school should be paid, confirming the practice of the majority of the boards; secondly, travelling costs should not be included thirdly, awards should not be given to students at the Open University who had already been in receipt of awards from public funds.
This third category is known as "second awards", and the intention was to bring Open University awards into line with general practice on postgraduate awards in Northern Ireland. Second awards already approved would be allowed to continue, but at the revised value and no new ones would be granted. Some of the area boards took action on these recommendations. I have reason to believe that this action was at officer level and it was not necessarily the considered decision of the members of the board meeting to debate the recommendation and approve it by resolution.
But those area boards which took this action overlooked the fact that the awards were subject to the approval of the Department of Education, and they did not obtain that approval. I should like to thank the Open University Students' Association and others for drawing my attention to this matter.
As a result of this situation, officers of my Department last week met the chief education officers of the area education library boards to consider the position and they readily agreed that the whole question of awards for the Open University should be reviewed for the longer term in the light of the prevailing financial circumstances. The decisions taken by the education authorities in England and Wales are under similar financial constraints.
However, something further was necessary for the coming summer and the Department has determined that the value of the award required to be approved under the regulations shall be for one summer school together with the travelling expenses. This is the status quo of the majority of the boards, so we are holding the position throughout the coming summer.
The second award is a matter for each board—not for me or the Department—to decide under the powers given in the relevant regulations for discretionary awards. I am confident, however,


that the boards will have regard to the views that have been publicly expressed and to the Adjournment debate tonight, and I shall draw their attention to it.
There is one major exception to the fact that my Department has no influence over second awards, and that is in the case of teachers. In a variety of ways they are encouraged to increase and add to their academic qualifications. That is the special position of teachers in relation to the Open University courses as at present being examined by Northern Ireland Teachers In-service Training Committee, which contains representatives from the profession, the Training institutions, the area boards and the Department. In advance of its conclusions, the Department has decided that it will, for this summer, make in-service training awards to teachers who are enrolled in Open University courses and who are not in receipt of awards from the area boards. That is action for this coming summer, again pending the availbility of the ultimate review. The amount of the award will be on the same basis as that made by the boards. The Department is consulting the Open University about the detailed arrangements to be made.
May I say, generally, that it is extremely difficult, in circumstances where the discretion exercised by local education authorities in England and Wales has led to considerable variations in practice, to make a direct comparison between the position in Northern Ireland and that in England and Wales, but I should like to assure the hon. Member and the House that in exercising its approval function in relation to the level of aware—this is where the Department comes into the exercise—the Department of Education in Northern Ireland will continue to have regard to the general

practice in England and Wales, with a view as nearly as possible to bringing it into line with the generally accepted best practice.
I hope that these remarks of mine will clarify the position, and that the action taken by the Department has restored it to the satisfaction of the hon. Member. I hope particularly that I have allayed fears about radical changes in the level of support to Northern Ireland students for the current session of the Open University.
I have referred to the discussions that are to take place between the Department of Education and the education and library boards. Discussion of this kind are now an integral part of the administration of the education service in Northern Ireland and they indicate a very close relationship between my Department and the boards which has evolved in the two and a half years in which the boards have been in operation.
I have had personal experience of these discussions, since I have periodic meetings with the chairman and chief education officers of the boards where I take the chair, and one of the major advantages of the scale which exists in Northern Ireland is that we can have these meetings. I do not think that many other parts of the United Kingdom have quite the same facilities in this regard.
We all welcome the chance to consider on the Floor of the House local issues in Northern Ireland which are not related to violence and disruption. The spirit of our discussion tonight is the spirit in which we all like to operate. and I hope it will be regarded as a most worthwhile exchange.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.